The SAGE Sourcebook of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement 9781452281919, 2014045746
Service-Learning and Civic Engagement: A Sourcebook focuses on historical, philosophical, social foundations, practices
235 81 13MB
English Pages [521] Year 2015
COVER
EDITORIAL BOARD
TITLE PAGE
COPYRIGHT PAGE
BRIEF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
ABOUT THE EDITORS
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
PART I - FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
CHAPTER 1 - DEVELOPING PRACTITIONER-SCHOLARS FOR THE FUTURE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
CHAPTER 2 - A THEORY OF PRACTICAL BEAUTY FOR SERVICE-LEARNING AND PUBLIC-ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP
CHAPTER 3 - VIRTUE ETHICS: FOUNDATION FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND SERVICE-LEARNING
CHAPTER 4 - INFUSING ETHICAL DECISION MAKING INTO SERVICE-LEARNING EXPERIENCES
CHAPTER 5 - EPISTEMOLOGIES OF IGNORANCE: FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
CHAPTER 6 - AN OVERVIEW OF ACADEMIC COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING APPROACHES
CHAPTER 7 - REDEFINING SERVICE-LEARNING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOCIAL CHANGE WITHIN EDUCATION
CHAPTER 8 - THE POWER OF STUDENT ACTIVISM: TEACHING SOCIAL JUSTICE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL
CHAPTER 9 - CRITICAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND SOCIAL JUSTICE: A HOLISTIC CURRICULUM
CHAPTER 10 - CONSTRUYENDO COMUNIDAD: DEVELOPING A BICULTURAL AND BILINGUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY BUILDING
CHAPTER 11 - CRITICAL DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP: A LEARNING OUTCOME MODEL TO SUPPORT ENGAGING FOR JUSTICE
PART II - USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
CHAPTER 12 - ATTENTION AND ACTION: THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PARADIGM FOR COMMUNITY-ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP
CHAPTER 13 - COMMON GROUND THROUGH DIALOGUE: CREATING CIVIC DISPOSITIONS
CHAPTER 14 - SERVICE-LEARNING, VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION-AS-ACTION, AND THE CALL TO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
CHAPTER 15 - BUILDING SERVICE-LEARNING INTO AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE: URBAN CIVIC EDUCATION
PART III - USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
CHAPTER 16 - THE SIX REQUIREMENTS OF SERVICE-LEARNING: A PATHWAY TO HIGH IMPACT PRACTICES
CHAPTER 17 - INTEGRATING KNOWLEDGE THROUGH ACADEMIC SERVICE-LEARNING
CHAPTER 18 - SERVICE-LEARNING POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
CHAPTER 19 - AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON RELATIONSHIP-BASED SERVICE-LEARNING
CHAPTER 20 - CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE WHEN STUDYING “DEVIANT” POPULATIONS
CHAPTER 21 - PREPARING STUDENTS TO ENGAGE IN RESEARCH IN THE REAL WORLD: HOW TO CONSTRUCT A COURSE IN COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH
PART IV - COMMUNITY: ASSETS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND PARTNERSHIPS
CHAPTER 22 - FINDING THE RIGHT PARTNERS FOR SERVICE-LEARNING COURSES
CHAPTER 23 - ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND PURPOSEFUL PROJECTS AND GOALS
CHAPTER 24 - P–16 SERVICE-LEARNING PARTNERSHIPS: A MODEL FOR SUCCESS
CHAPTER 25 - NEIGHBORHOOD ART HIVES: ENGAGING COMMUNITIES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
CHAPTER 26 - COMMUNITY ASSETS AND INDIVIDUAL EXPERTISE: EDUCATING FUTURE PROFESSIONALS THROUGH COMMUNITY SERVICE-LEARNING
CHAPTER 27 - THE NEED FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT IN COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING PARTNERSHIPS TO EVALUATE COMMUNITY IMPACTS
PART V - BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 28 - GETTING BEYOND SERVICE-LEARNING MYTHS IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
CHAPTER 29 - BITS: A COLLEGE-LIBRARY PARTNERSHIP
CHAPTER 30 - SERVICE-LEARNING AND BUSINESS: A STUDENT’S PERSPECTIVE
PART VI - THE HUMANITIES
CHAPTER 31 - INTEGRATING SERVICE-LEARNING INTO A UNIVERSITY MODERN LANGUAGES PROGRAM
CHAPTER 32 - PERFORMING ARTS AND COMMUNITY EXCHANGE
CHAPTER 33 - EVERYMAN, SERVICE-LEARNING, AND COLLABORATION
CHAPTER 34 - INFUSING SERVICE-LEARNING COLLABORATIONS IN MUSIC EDUCATION
CHAPTER 35 - ART IN SERVICE-LEARNING: CONNECTING ART AND COMMUNITY
PART VII - THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
CHAPTER 36 - CULTIVATING THE SCIENCES WITH SERVICE-LEARNING AT A REGIONAL UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER 37 - PEDAGOGICAL TECHNIQUES IN THE HEALTH SCIENCES
CHAPTER 38 - IMPLEMENTING SERVICE-LEARNING IN DOCTOR OF AUDIOLOGY CURRICULUM
CHAPTER 39 - SERVICE-LEARNING AND DEAF STUDIES IN THE COMMUNITY
CHAPTER 40 - ENGINEERING HISTORY: SERVICE-LEARNING AT A NON–LIBERAL ARTS INSTITUTION
CHAPTER 41 - INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH SERVICE-LEARNING
CHAPTER 42 - UNDERGRADUATE TECHNOCRATS: EDUCATING FUTURE SCIENTISTS TO BECOME CITIZENS
PART VIII - THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
CHAPTER 43 - OPPORTUNITY FOR EARLY SERVICE-LEARNINGIN TEACHER EDUCATION
CHAPTER 44 - LESSONS FROM PRESERVICE TEACHERS: UNDER THE SURFACE OF SERVICE-LEARNING IN TEACHER EDUCATION
CHAPTER 45 - DISMANTLING THE PERCEIVED HIERARCHY: A SHARED INTELLECTUAL ENDEAVOR BETWEEN FACULTY AND STUDENT AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 46 - EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICE-LEARNING MENTORS: PROMOTING STUDENT LEADERSHIP
CHAPTER 47 - CRITICAL SERVICE-LEARNING: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PART IX - INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
CHAPTER 48 - DIALECTICS OF POWER AND RESISTANCE: SERVICE-LEARNING IN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXTS
CHAPTER 49 - THE AFFECTIVE-COGNITIVE MODEL OF REFLECTION: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 50 - FROM WISCONSIN TO GHANA AND BACK AGAIN: SERVICE-LEARNING AND THE FIRST GRADE
CHAPTER 51 - ENGLAND’S CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION EXPERIMENT: ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP OR SERVICE?
PART X - SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
CHAPTER 52 - HOLISTIC PARTNERSHIPS: SUSTAINABILITY, LEARNED LESSONS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
CHAPTER 53 - SITUATING ENGAGEMENT IN CANADIAN HIGHER EDUCATION
CHAPTER 54 - DEPARTMENT-DRIVEN STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINING SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
CHAPTER 55 - BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE: COMMUNITY AS COLLEAGUE
CHAPTER 56 - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION: A CAUTIONARY TALE
CHAPTER 57 - SERVICE-LEARNING AS CIVIC PEDAGOGY: LESSONS LEARNED FROM STUDENTS’ STORIES
CHAPTER 58 - RELATIONAL APPROACH TO CO-CONSTRUCTED RISK MANAGEMENT
APPENDIX A: RESOURCE GUIDE
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY
INDEX
Recommend Papers
![Civic Engagement Across the Curriculum [1 ed.]
9781945459085](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/civic-engagement-across-the-curriculum-1nbsped-9781945459085.jpg)
![Transformative Civic Engagement Through Community Organizing [1 ed.]
9781620361054](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/transformative-civic-engagement-through-community-organizing-1nbsped-9781620361054.jpg)
- Author / Uploaded
- Omobolade Delano-Oriaran
- Marguerite W. Penick-Parks
- Suzanne Fondrie
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
The SAGE Sourcebook of
Service-Learning and Civic Engagement
EDITORIAL BOARD Editors Omobolade Delano-Oriaran St. Norbert College Marguerite W. Penick-Parks University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh Suzanne Fondrie University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh
Editorial Board Warren J. Blumenfeld University of Massachusetts Amherst
Mary Oling-Sisay Alliant International University
Deirdre Egan-Ryan St. Norbert College
Robert Osgood St. Norbert College
Paul C. Gorski George Mason University
Julianne Price Price Learning Keys
Anand R. Marri Teachers College, Columbia University Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Marie G. Sandy University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Eddie Moore, Jr. The Privilege Institute
Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell Louisiana State University Paul Van Auken University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh
The SAGE Sourcebook of
Service-Learning and Civic Engagement
Editors Omobolade Delano-Oriaran St. Norbert College
Marguerite W. Penick-Parks University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh
Suzanne Fondrie
University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh
Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
FOR INFORMATION: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: [email protected] SAGE Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London, EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The SAGE sourcebook of service-learning and civic engagement / editors, Omobolade Delano-Oriaran, St. Norbert College, Marguerite W. Penick-Parks, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, Suzanne Fondrie, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
pages cm
India
Includes bibliographical references and index. SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. 3 Church Street #10-04 Samsung Hub Singapore 049483
ISBN 978-1-4522-8191-9 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Service learning— Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Delano-Oriaran, Omobolade editor of compilation. LC220.5.S23 2015 378.1'03—dc23
Acquisitions Editor: Jim Brace-Thompson Developmental Editor: Shirin Parsavand Production Editor: Tracy Buyan Reference Systems Manager: Leticia Gutierrez Reference Systems Coordinator: Anna Villaseñor Typesetter: Hurix Systems Pvt. Ltd. Copy Editors: Diane DiMura, Sheree Van Vreede Proofreader: Gretchen Treadwell Indexer: Scott Smiley Cover Designer: Rose Storey Marketing Manager: Carmel Schrire
15 16 17 18 19 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2014045746
BRIEF CONTENTS
About the Editors About the Contributors Acknowledgments
xviii xx xxxi
Foreword
xxxiii
Introduction
xxxvii
PART I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
1
PART II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
83
PART III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
113
PART IV. COMMUNITY: ASSETS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND PARTNERSHIPS
153
PART V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
199
PART VI. THE HUMANITIES
225
PART VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
263
PART VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
315
PART IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
357
PART X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
393
Appendix A. Resource Guide
443
Appendix B. Glossary
449
Index
453
CONTENTS
About the Editors About the Contributors Acknowledgments
xviii xx xxxi
Foreword
xxxiii
Introduction
xxxvii
PART I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT 1. Developing Practitioner-Scholars for the Future of Community Engagement Mandi R. McReynolds
3
What Is a Practitioner-Scholar?
3
Barriers and Solutions
4
Action Plan
8
Conclusion
8
2. A Theory of Practical Beauty for Service-Learning and Public-Engaged Scholarship Marie G. Sandy
11
A Move Toward Understanding Knowledge as Conversation
11
A Critical-Friendly Reflection on Pragmatism
12
Understanding Phronesis or Practical Wisdom
12
The Case of Phronesis in Service-Learning and in Higher Education
14
Implications for Designing Service-Learning Programs
14
Implications for Public-Engaged Scholarship
15
Conclusion
15
3. Virtue Ethics: Foundation for Civic Engagement and Service-Learning Rodmon King
17
Background and Literature Review
17
Virtue Ethics, Deontology, and Consequentialism
19
Service-Learning and Virtue Ethics
19
Virtue Ethics in the Classroom
20
Conclusion
20
4. Infusing Ethical Decision Making Into Service-Learning Experiences Lindsay A. Blumer
23
Background and Review of Literature
23
Current Issues and Controversies
23
Practices and Methods
24
Sidebar 4.1: At Your Core
25
Assessment
25
Sidebar 4.2: Who Are You and What Do Others See
26
Conclusion and Implications
28
Resources
28
5. Epistemologies of Ignorance: Foundation for Community Engagement Karen Frost-Arnold
31
Literature Review
31
Current Issues in Service-Learning
32
Practices and Methods
33
Conclusion
35
6. An Overview of Academic Community-Based Learning Approaches Omobolade Delano-Oriaran
37
Related Terminology
37
Partners
39
Diverse Community Settings
41
Conclusion
43
7. Redefining Service-Learning for the Purpose of Social Change Within Education Hoda Farahmandpour and Ilya Shodjaee-Zrudlo
47
The History and Philosophy of Service-Learning
47
Current Issues and Controversies of Service-Learning
48
Reconceptualizing Service as Twofold in Purpose
49
Service in the Educational Context
50
Conclusion and Further Research
50
8. The Power of Student Activism: Teaching Social Justice in Middle School Kristen Berger and Maiya Jackson
53
Literature Review
54
The Case for Critical Service-Learning
54
The Activism Project
55
Project Impact
58
Resources
58
9. Critical Service-Learning and Social Justice: A Holistic Curriculum Amy Argenal and Tomás Jacquez
61
Critical Service-Learning and Social Justice
61
The Urban School of San Francisco
62
The Four-Year Program
62
Conclusion
65
10. Construyendo Comunidad: Developing a Bicultural and Bilingual Framework for Community Building J. Estrella Torrez
67
Background
68
Current Issues
68
Partners: “Served” and “Server”
68
Challenges
69
Practice
70
Implications
71
Conclusion
72
11. Critical Democratic Citizenship: A Learning Outcome Model to Support Engaging for Justice Cynthia Gordon da Cruz
75
Precisely Understanding Democracy and Justice
75
The U.S. Context: Racial and Ethnic Injustice
76
Learning Outcomes for Civic Engagement for Justice in a Democracy
77
Implications: Developing and Measuring Students’ Critical Democratic Citizenship
79
Conclusion
80
PART II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT 12. Attention and Action: The Southwest Florida Paradigm for Community-Engaged Scholarship Brandon W. Kliewer, Brandon P. Hollingshead, Jessica J. Rhea, and Courtney Dwyer Satkoski
85
The Southwest Florida and Florida Gulf Coast University Context for Engagement
85
Theoretical Framework
86
Practical and Applied Framework
88
Action: Project Development and Execution
88
Conclusion
89
Appendix A: IDS 3300 Foundations of Civic Engagement Course Objectives
90
Appendix B: Civic Engagement Project Assignment Sheet
90
13. Common Ground Through Dialogue: Creating Civic Dispositions Darryl Mace, Nancy Watterson, and Nicholas Rademacher
93
Background/Literature Review
94
Practices and Methods
94
Resources
97
14. Service-Learning, Vocational Exploration-as-Action, and the Call to Civic Engagement Ned Scott Laff and Joyce Fields The Concept of the Courses
99 99
Philosophic Underpinning
100
Overview of the Courses
101
The Sophomore Seminar
101
The Junior Seminar
103
Conclusion
105
15. Building Service-Learning Into an Academic Discipline: Urban Civic Education James Mullooly and Steven M. Hart
107
Service-Learning as an Academic Discipline
107
Complementary Developments of Activism and Discipline Creation in Anthropology and Service-Learning
108
Fresno State’s Minor in Urban Civic Education
110
Conclusion
111
PART III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING 16. The Six Requirements of Service-Learning: A Pathway to High Impact Practices Marie Watkins, Collin Hayes, and Molly Sarubbi
115
Background
116
Challenge
116
Literature Review
117
Solutions/Methods/Practice Through the Six R’s (Requirements)
117
Conclusion and Implications
120
17. Integrating Knowledge Through Academic Service-Learning Scott L. Crabill and Christopher D. Jensen
123
Challenges Facing Integrative Learning
123
Review of Literature
124
Problem- and Issue-Based Learning
125
Classroom Meets Community
125
Conclusion and Implications
127
18. Service-Learning Policy in Higher Education Margaret Sass
129
Policy Philosophy
129
Advisory Council
130
Agenda Creation
130
Implementation
131
Professional Development
131
Evaluation
132
Legal Guidelines
132
Future Research
132
Conclusion
133
19. An Institutional Perspective on Relationship-Based Service-Learning Ann Marie Jursca Keffer
135
Intentional Design of Community Partnerships
135
Saint Joseph’s University Community Partnerships
136
Relationship-Based Partnerships: Course Selections in Practice
136
Institutional Support
139
Conclusion
139
20. Connecting Theory to Practice When Studying “Deviant” Populations Helen Rosenberg
141
The Sociology of Mental Illness
141
The Methodology of Engagement
142
A Case Study in Community-Based Learning
142
Students’ Experiences
144
21. Preparing Students to Engage in Research in the Real World: How to Construct a Course in Community-Based Participatory Research Karen Schwartz and Adje van de Sande
147
Literature Review
147
Definition of Terms
148
Course Preparation and Description
148
Challenges and Solutions
151
Implications and Outcomes for Students and Community
151
Conclusion
152
PART IV. COMMUNITY: ASSETS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND PARTNERSHIPS 22. Finding the Right Partners for Service-Learning Courses Isabel Baca
155
Background
155
Controversies and Potential Problems
156
Recommendations and Suggested Practices
157
Conclusion and Future Directions
158
Appendix A: Agency Profile Form
159
Appendix B: Sample Agency Profile
159
Appendix C: Service-Learning Agreement
160
Appendix D: Sample Contracts
161
Appendix E: Agency Mentor Evaluation Form
162
Appendix F: Student Evaluation of Agency Mentor and Organization
163
23. Establishing Community Partnerships and Purposeful Projects and Goals Crystal S. Aschenbrener
165
Benefits of Service-Learning for Nonprofit Organizations
165
Long-Term Volunteer Base and/or Possible Recruitment of Future Employees
166
Possible Obstacles to Consider
167
Building the Partnership With a Nonprofit Organization
168
Conclusion
170
24. P–16 Service-Learning Partnerships: A Model for Success Julie Dierberger
171
Background, History, and Literature Review
171
Current Issues and Controversies
172
Practices and Methods
173
Sidebar 24.1: Sample Schedule and Daily Goals
173
Implications
176
Assessment
176
Conclusions, Future Directions, and Suggestions for Future Research
177
25. Neighborhood Art Hives: Engaging Communities in Teaching and Learning Janis Timm-Bottos and Rosemary C. Reilly
179
The Community Art Studio/Storefront Classroom: An Interstitial Space
179
The Example: CATS 631/ARTE 398 Community Art Studio: Methods and Materials
181
Conclusion: Neighborhood Art Hives for CESL
183
Resources
184
26. Community Assets and Individual Expertise: Educating Future Professionals Through Community Service-Learning Leela Viswanathan
185
Context: Community-University Partnerships in Service-Learning
186
Review of Literature: Service-Learning and Professional Education
186
Course Design and Methods in Service-Learning for Professional Planning Education
186
Implications and Future Directions
188
Resources
189
27. The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Community-Based Learning Partnerships to Evaluate Community Impacts Elizabeth Tryon, Marian Slaughter, and J. Ashleigh Ross
191
Background, History, and Literature Review
192
Current Issues in Prioritizing Community Impacts in CBL Projects
193
Current Models for Evaluating Impact of CBL
195
Future Directions and Suggestions for Further Research
196
Resources
197
PART V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT 28. Getting Beyond Service-Learning Myths in Management Education Jason C. Senjem
201
Challenges to Management Education
201
Service-Learning Myths in Management Education
202
Service-Learning Conceptual Models as Solutions
202
Sidebar 28.1: Knight Owl Project Grading Sheet
203
Sidebar 28.2: Sustainable Business Project Guidelines
205
Conclusion and Implications
206
Resources
206
29. BITS: A College-Library Partnership John Shepherd and Allan Wilson
209
Background and History
209
Literature Review
210
Community Learning Projects in Practice
210
Conclusion and Implications
213
Appendix A: Business Analysis Project Charter
213
30. Service-Learning and Business: A Student’s Perspective Diana E. Kolar
215
Discovering Business Success Beyond the Traditional Model
215
Case for Service-Learning for All Business Students
216
Service-Learning and the Development of Three Critical Types of Skills
218
Serving to Cultivate Civic-Minded, Savvy, and Successful Business Professionals
222
PART VI. THE HUMANITIES 31. Integrating Service-Learning Into a University Modern Languages Program E. Nicole Meyer
227
Service-Learning
227
Role of Service-Learning in World Language Programs
228
Intersection of Theory and Practice
228
Lessons Learned
230
Advantages and Challenges
230
Conclusion
231
32. Performing Arts and Community Exchange Janna L. Goodwin and Amie Dowling
233
A Role for Performing Arts in Violence Prevention
233
Review of Literature
234
The Course
234
Assessment Considerations and Methods
236
Conclusion
237
Resources
237
33. Everyman, Service-Learning, and Collaboration Dana E. Aspinall
239
Medieval Conceptions of Community Building and Service-Learning Today
239
Service-Learning in Practice: Performing Everyman
241
Student Reactions: Rewards, Challenges, and New Views
242
34. Infusing Service-Learning Collaborations in Music Education Lois Veenhoven Guderian
245
Background
245
Institutional Commitment to Service-Learning
247
Department Approach to Service-Learning
247
Service-Learning Program Principles
249
Students’ Reflections and Evaluations
250
Conclusion
251
Appendix A: ASL Syllabus for Music 386 (Sample of ASL Syllabus as Aligned to Course Goals)
252
35. Art in Service-Learning: Connecting Art and Community Sophia Suk-mun Law
257
The Service-Learning Research Scheme (SLRS)
257
Connecting Theory to Practice: Infusing Service-Learning Into Art
258
SLRS Outcomes
260
Conclusion
261
PART VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS 36. Cultivating the Sciences With Service-Learning at a Regional University Kristin Riker-Coleman, Michelle Arnhold, Nicholas P. Danz, and Randy Gabrys-Alexson
265
Integrating Service-Learning in Science Coursework
265
Service-Learning With a Regional Focus
266
Conclusion
268
37. Pedagogical Techniques in the Health Sciences Elias Mpofu, Martin Mackey, Syeda Zakia Hossain, Reinie Cordier, Michael Millington, and Sarah Wilkes-Gillan
271
Goals and Processes of Service-Learning in the Health Sciences
271
The Role of Service-Learning in the Health Sciences
272
Current Issues and Controversies
272
Practices and Methods
273
Illustrative Interdisciplinary Service-Learning in the Health Sciences
273
Examples of Health Sciences Discipline Service-Learning
275
Conclusion
277
Resources
277
38. Implementing Service-Learning in Doctor of Audiology Curriculum Carol G. Cokely, Linda M. Thibodeau, and Jackie L. Clark
279
Audiologic Rehabilitation for Adults (AUD 6316)
280
Aural Habilitation for Children With Hearing Impairments (AUD 7326)
282
Intensive Auditory Rehabilitation for Adult Hearing Loss (AUD 7325)
282
Experiential Service-Learning Through Humanitarian Programs (COMD 7v98)
283
Conclusion
284
Appendix A: AUD 6316 Service-Learning Agreement
285
39. Service-Learning and Deaf Studies in the Community Sheryl B. Cooper and Jody H. Cripps
287
Service-Learning in Deaf Studies
287
Social Services in the Deaf Community
288
Meeting the Challenges of Service-Learning
289
Reciprocity in Service-Learning
290
Research on Service-Learning in Deaf Studies
290
Conclusion
291
Appendix A: Abridged Syllabus for Social Service in the Deaf Community
292
40. Engineering History: Service-Learning at a Non–Liberal Arts University Michael H. Carriere
295
Setting the Stage: The University Scholars Program Curriculum
296
From Learning to Doing: Service-Learning and the University Scholars Program
296
Bringing it All Together: Urban Growing With Career Youth Development
297
Building Reciprocity: The Benefits of Service-Learning for All Participants
298
A Developing Alliance: The Liberal Arts and the STEM Disciplines in the 21st Century
299
Resources
299
41. Integrating Technology With Service-Learning Tim Krause
301
Challenges Sustaining Service-Learning Programs
301
Review of Literature
302
Project and Time Management
302
Communication
303
Document Management and Sharing
304
Program and Project Assessment
304
Sidebar 41.1: Survey of Partner Organizations
305
Sidebar 41.2: Self and Peer Review of Student Work
305
Conclusion and Implications
305
Resources
305
42. Undergraduate Technocrats: Educating Future Scientists to Become Citizens Ruth Cronje and Laurelyn Sandkamp
307
Expanded Democracy: Boyte’s Citizen Solution Approach
307
The Pilot Course
308
Conclusion
310
Appendix A: Pesticide Justice Case
311
Appendix B: What Are Good Reasons Lesson
312
PART VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 43. Opportunity for Early Service-Learning in Teacher Education Reid Richard Riggle and Nancy Mathias
317
The Partners
317
The Psychology for Teaching Course
318
The Village Project Model
320
Conclusion
322
44. Lessons From Preservice Teachers: Under the Surface of Service-Learning in Teacher Education Jonathan C. Dooley and Terry J. Burant
325
Theoretical Perspectives
325
About the Study
326
Findings
326
Conclusion and Implications
330
45. Dismantling the Perceived Hierarchy: A Shared Intellectual Endeavor Between Faculty and Student Affairs Tynisha D. Meidl and Jennifer Garrett Nissen
333
The Role of Academic Service-Learning at a Mission-Driven Institution
334
Sidebar 45.1: Course Goals
335
Sidebar 45.2: Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
335
Sidebar 45.3: TRIPS Program Goals
336
Sidebar 45.4: Trip Leader Learning Outcomes
337
Sidebar 45.5: Trip Leader Responsibilities
338
Evidence of Success
338
Sidebar 45.6: Ten Tips for Effective Facilitation
339
Sidebar 45.7: Reflection Guide
340
Conclusion
341
46. Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentors: Promoting Student Leadership Mary Jane Eisenhauer
343
Service-Learning in Early Childhood Teacher Education
343
Review of Literature
344
The Service-Learning Student Leadership Model in Practice
345
Opportunities for Leadership
347
Looking Ahead: Issues to Explore
349
Conclusion
349
47. Critical Service-Learning: Implications for Social Emotional Development Cassandra McKay-Jackson and Annette Johnson
351
Social Emotional Development
351
School Social Work
351
Service-Learning and Critical Service-Learning
352
Implementing a CSL Project
353
Implications
355
Conclusion
355
PART IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 48. Dialectics of Power and Resistance: Service-Learning in International Contexts Shenila Khoja-Moolji and Shirin Karsan
359
Drexel University’s weServe
360
Dialectics of Power and Resistance
360
The Desiring Social Change Agents
361
Conclusion
363
49. The Affective-Cognitive Model of Reflection: International Service-Learning in Community Development Antoinette R. Smith-Tolken and Jacob M. J. du Plessis
365
Review of Literature
366
Integrating the Affective-Cognitive Model Into the Course Syllabus
368
Research Process and Analysis
369
Findings
370
Framework for Understanding Emotions During Reflection
370
Conclusion
372
Appendix A: Certificate Program Framework
373
Appendix B: Two Generic Questions and Broad Themes and Instructions for Weekly Reflection Journals
376
50. From Wisconsin to Ghana and Back Again: Service-Learning and the First Grade Marguerite W. Penick-Parks and Suzanne Fondrie
379
Challenges Facing Rural Districts
380
Review of Literature
380
Responding to School Needs: Multicultural Education and Service-Learning
380
Conclusion and Implications
383
Resources
384
51. England’s Citizenship Education Experiment: Active Citizenship or Service? Lee Jerome
387
Service-Learning
387
Education for Active Citizenship
388
Service-Learning and Education for Active Citizenship Compared
389
What’s the Problem With Service-Learning in the English Context?
391
PART X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS 52. Holistic Partnerships: Sustainability, Learned Lessons, and Future Directions Walter W. Cannon and Cheri Doane
395
Current Issues and Controversies
395
Problems and Solutions
396
Practices and Methods for Holistic Partnerships: An Institutional Model
396
Exemplary Course: English 344: Writing for Nonprofit Organizations
399
Conclusion
399
53. Situating Engagement in Canadian Higher Education Heather McRae
401
A Snapshot of Influences on Community-Engagement Approaches in Canada
401
The Case for Institutionalizing Engagement
402
Guidelines for Institutionalizing Engagement
402
Frameworks for Guiding the Institutionalization Process
403
Organizational Models for Situating Community Engagement
404
Coordinating Mechanisms for Engagement
405
Institutionalizing Engagement at the University of Victoria
405
Networks as a Unifying Force
406
Conclusion
406
54. Department-Driven Strategies for Sustaining Service-Learning and Community Engagement Lois-Ann Kuntz and Meghan Wilson Duff
409
Department-Level Strategies for Sustainability
409
Sustaining Community Partnerships
412
Administratively Supporting the Anchoring of SL/CE Across Campus
413
Conclusion: Community Engaged Departments Are Worth the Effort
413
Resources
413
55. Both Sides of the Fence: Community as Colleague Carol Wickersham
417
The Problem
417
Perspectives From Each Side of the Fence
418
An Initial Experiment With Campus and Community Collegiality
421
Challenges and Opportunities
421
56. Community Engagement in Education: A Cautionary Tale Sarah Edwards and Nancy Edick
423
Background and History
423
Current Issues and Controversies
424
Implications
425
Conclusion, Future Directions, and Suggestions for Further Research
426
Resources
426
57. Service-Learning as Civic Pedagogy: Lessons Learned From Students’ Stories Keith E. Robinder
429
Understanding the Dimensions of Civic Responsibility
429
Exploring and Understanding the Lived Experiences of Service-Learners
430
Lessons Learned
430
Implications for Service-Learning Practice
433
Conclusion
434
58. Relational Approach to Co-Constructed Risk Management Lina D. Dostilio and Kate A. Molchan
435
Current Approaches to Risk Management
435
Relational Approach
437
Conclusion and Implications
440
Appendix A. Resource Guide
443
Appendix B. Glossary
449
Index
453
ABOUT THE EDITORS
Omobolade Delano-Oriaran was born and raised in Nigeria and immigrated to the United States, where she earned her undergraduate and master’s degrees at Savannah State University, Georgia, and her PhD at Pennsylvania State University before assuming her current position as associate professor of education at St. Norbert College in Wisconsin. Her scholarly activities focus on multicultural education, community engagement, and gender and schooling and have resulted in numerous peer-reviewed publications in the Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Journal of Education for Teaching, Sociology of Education: An A-to-Z Guide, and Encyclopedia of Human Services and Diversity. Dr. Delano-Oriaran focuses on engaging and empowering students to be change agents for social justice in the classroom and the community; thus, her strong interest is in infusing critical service-learning, community-based learning, and civic engagement in the curriculum and beyond. She developed an authentic and culturally engaging (ACE) service-learning framework for helping preservice teachers develop, improve, or enhance their cultural-competency skills and applied it to a service-learning opportunity that involves education faculty, preservice teachers, area social workers, White/Caucasian parents and families, and Black/African American children. It resulted in the development of a weekend enrichment retreat for parents of European descent with adopted Black/African American children. Furthermore, Dr. Delano-Oriaran is the co-founder of African Heritage, Inc. in Appleton, Wisconsin. She is a member of the National Association of Multicultural Education and Association for Teacher Educators. Dr. Delano-Oriaran is the recipient of numerous awards on diversity issues and community change. She is the recipient of the City of Appleton’s Toward Community Unity in Diversity Award, the Wisconsin State Human Relations Association’s Outstanding Human Relations Educator, and the St. Norbert College’s Bishop Morneau Community Service Award. Marguerite W. Penick-Parks student taught in the Cooperative Teacher Education Program in Kansas City, xviii
Kansas, a program for preparing urban teachers. She subsequently served as a high school teacher in Kansas City. Seeing the need to learn more about how schools work, she returned to academia to earn her MA in educational policy from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and a PhD in curriculum and instruction from the University of Iowa. She taught for nine years in the Education Department at Ripon College and for the past 12 years at the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh, recently completing 3 years as associate dean of the College of Education and Human Services. In 2014, Dr. Penick-Parks won the University of Wisconsin’s Edward M. Penson Distinguished Teaching Award and the Edward M. Penson Award for Faculty Achievement. She is co-editor of the upcoming (2015) book Just Folks: White People Confronting Racial and Social Injustice. Dr. Penick-Parks has publications on preparing rural White teachers to understand self and curriculum, ESL/bilingual education in rural Wisconsin, and using multicultural literature to engage middle school students in seeing multiple perspectives. She currently teaches a graduate-level course for Educational Leadership, Dialogues in Social Justice, as well as dual-level courses in Multicultural Materials for Children and Adolescents, children’s literature, and adolescent literature. She served as president of the Wisconsin State Human Relations Association, president of the Quest Elementary School Governance Board (projectbased-learning charter school Grades 2–3), and is on the National Advisory Board for the White Privilege Conference. Dr. Penick-Parks is one of the founding editors of the online journal Understanding and Dismantling Privilege. She has engaged in service-learning and civic-engagement projects with her students as well as at her institution. The guiding component of her work is how to prepare educators to work with all students and increase equity in access to educational opportunities. Suzanne Fondrie taught English and German to high school students in Las Vegas, Nevada, before earning her PhD in curriculum and instruction at the University of Wisconsin. Currently, she is an associate professor in the Curriculum and Instruction Department at the University of
About the Editors–•–xix
Wisconsin–Oshkosh. Her teaching and research interests include democratic approaches, teacher education, and literature for children. Suzanne works with future secondary English language arts teachers in her methods courses and supervision, where she encourages them to consider ways to integrate community service into their writing, literature, and speech communication plans. She has also engaged
students with civic and service-learning opportunities in her introductory education courses, where students designed and implemented diverse projects, such as presenting a panel on first-generation college success to high school seniors and compiling a video regarding local residents’ reactions to including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in elementary classrooms.
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS
Amy Argenal is the director of service-learning at The Urban School of San Francisco in California. She received her MA and is completing her doctorate work in international and multicultural education from the University of San Francisco. She also received an MA in human rights from Mahidol University in Thailand. Michelle Arnhold is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Superior. Her PhD in neuroscience is from the University of Minnesota. She specializes in neuroscience and physiology and is particularly interested in examining how neuroendocrine systems influence or are affected by different activities or events in a person’s life. She is also interested in issues around obesity and how obesity may influence the functioning of the HPA (hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal) axis and the HPG (hypothalamic– pituitary–gonadal) axis. Crystal S. Aschenbrener, DSW, MSW, is employed at the University of Wisconsin–Stout as an assistant professor. Formerly, she has worked at South Dakota State University and the Brookings Area Habitat for Humanity in South Dakota where her love of service-learning began. She earned her master’s of social work degree from the University of Kansas where she learned the strengths perspective, which is engrained in her service-learning philosophy. Aschenbrener has taught courses, presented at conferences, earned grants, and published manuscripts on service-learning, which has become a signature component of her academic career. Dana E. Aspinall, associate professor at Alma College (MI), studies and teaches Shakespeare and early modern English literature as well as medieval drama. He earned his PhD from the University of Connecticut in 1996 and has taught at Alma College since 2007. His current professional interests include performance and reception, and he regularly reviews plays for Shakespeare Bulletin and Cahiers Élisabéthains. He also frequently enlists his introductory literature classes in service-learning projects and recently presented a shortened version of “Everyman, xx
Service-Learning, and Collaboration” at the College English Association annual meeting. Isabel Baca received her PhD in rhetoric and professional communication from New Mexico State University and is currently an associate professor at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). Her research focuses on service-learning across the curriculum and community-based learning in the writing classroom. Her edited collection (2012), ServiceLearning and Writing: Paving the Way for Literacy(ies) Through Community Engagement includes chapters addressing service-learning and writing across the curriculum, and her numerous other publications center on the role of community engagement as a venue to help students improve their writing and help meet their communities’ literacy needs. Baca created and directs the Community Writing Partners program within UTEP’s English Department, collaborating on projects with nonprofit agency mentors. Kristen Berger is the seventh- and eighth-grade history teacher and Activism Project coordinator at Manhattan Country School in New York City. She is particularly interested in the concept of educating for global citizenship and using history education to prepare students for participation in a democratic society. She earned her BA at Swarthmore College in sociology and education and an MA in education leadership, politics, and advocacy from New York University’s Steinhardt School. Lindsay A. Blumer earned her MA in public policy and nonprofit management from the Lafollette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and is currently the executive director of the Center for Social Responsibility at Ripon College (WI). She provides instructional support in social justice, service-learning, and community engagement and provides mentorship opportunities for students through community partner collaborations and undergraduate research grants. Her experience includes working with national organizations such as United Way as a community fellow and as the former executive director of an issues-based nonprofit organization.
About the Contributors–•–xxi
Terry J. Burant is an academic professional lecturer at the University of Wyoming where she focuses her attention on field-based general methods courses. She also teaches in the teacher education program at Marquette University (WI). She earned her PhD at the University of Arizona in the Department of Teaching and Teacher Education. Her areas of expertise and interest include secondary content area literacy, classroom management, curriculum studies, and practitioner research. Walter W. Cannon is professor of English at Central College in Pella, Iowa, where he teaches early modern literature and a variety of writing courses including writing for nonprofit organizations. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Nebraska and his MA and PhD in English from Marquette University (WI). He has co-edited a collection of essays entitled Who Hears in Shakespeare? (2012). He has been instrumental in securing funding for and piloting service-learning courses, and in 2011 he received the Engaged Faculty Award from the Iowa Campus Compact for his work in developing servicelearning courses and for his assistance in establishing this statewide organization. Michael H. Carriere is an associate professor at the Milwaukee (WI) School of Engineering, where he teaches courses on American history, public policy, political science, environmental studies, and urban design. He has written for such publications as the Journal of Planning History, Perspectives on History, the Journal of Urban History, Reviews in American History, and History News Network. His first book, tentatively titled Between Being and Becoming: On Architecture, Student Protest, and the Aesthetics of Liberalism in Postwar America, is forthcoming from the University of Pennsylvania Press. He holds a PhD in American history from the University of Chicago. Jackie L. Clark, PhD, is a clinical associate professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, and a research scholar at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. She earned her doctorate degree from the University of Texas at Dallas. Her current research interests include incidence and prevalence of hearing loss in developing countries and speech understanding in noise. Carol G. Cokely, PhD, is a clinical associate professor and coordinator of clinical teaching at the University of Texas at Dallas. She earned her doctorate degree from Indiana University. Current research interests include auditory rehabilitation for adults with hearing loss, patient-centered counseling, and classroom and clinical pedagogy. Sheryl B. Cooper is the coordinator of the Deaf Studies Program at Towson University (MD). She earned her PhD in educational administration from Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. She established the Service-Learning
Program in Deaf Studies at Towson and has published on its impact. Cooper won the 2013 MD-DC Compact Award for Service-Learning. Reinie Cordier earned his PhD from the University of Sydney (Australia) and is a senior lecturer at James Cook University in Queensland. He has taught a number of subjects in occupational therapy with service-learning. Scott L. Crabill is the interim vice provost for undergraduate education at Oakland University (MI) and is the academic leader responsible for the quality of universitywide undergraduate experience. He is charged with advancing student success and faculty development, including oversight of the Office of Academic ServiceLearning. He is an associate professor at Oakland University. Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal communication are his primary areas of study with a quantitative methodological focus. Jody H. Cripps, an associate professor in the Department of Audiology, Speech-Language Pathology, & Deaf Studies at Towson University (MD), obtained his PhD in second language acquisition and teaching from the University of Arizona. He is vice president of The Gloss Institute, a nonprofit organization concentrating on promoting deaf children’s literacy skills. Ruth Cronje is a professor at the University of Wisconsin– Eau Claire. She earned her PhD in rhetoric and scientific and technical communication at the University of Minnesota. Her research has focused on scientific literacy and the public understanding of science; her teaching has integrated issues of scientific literacy with civic engagement opportunities. Nicholas P. Danz is an associate professor of biology at the University of Wisconsin–Superior, where he teaches about plants and ecology. He holds his MS in biology from the University of Minnesota–Duluth and his PhD in biology from the University of Minnesota. He is currently working on projects related to human influences on Great Lakes coastal wetland vegetation, invasive terrestrial plants of northwestern Wisconsin, and the ecology of Wisconsin Point dunes. Julie Dierberger provides service-learning curriculum development workshops for P–12 teachers and higher education faculty members at the University of Nebraska Omaha. She has spent her professional career supporting service-learning in education as a practitioner developing community partners, faculty members, and students in service-learning and engaged learning experiences across the P–16 spectrum. Her research interests are in community partner development, service-learning impact, and best practices in service-learning and community engagement.
xxii–•–About the Contributors
Dierberger received a master’s of arts in educational administration and bachelor of arts in English from the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Cheri Doane serves as the director of community-based learning at Central College in Pella, Iowa. In that role, she develops community partnerships, provides faculty development, and oversees service-learning and civic engagement initiatives. Doane has been instrumental in the development of service-learning at Central’s study abroad programs, which have been recognized in Promising Practices of International Service Learning (North Carolina Campus Compact). She has provided consultation, review, and faculty development for colleges and universities around the United States. Her personal civic involvement has been recognized with honors from President Obama and Iowa Governor Terry Branstad. She holds a BA from Central College and an MS from Iowa State University. Jonathan C. Dooley is the assistant vice president for student life and dean of campus life at Elon University (NC), with responsibility for several offices and programs related to the residential campus initiative, inclusive community, and civic engagement. He earned a doctorate in educational policy and leadership from Marquette University (MI) and has held academic appointments at both Marquette and Elon. His teaching, research, and administrative interests and experiences include diversity and social justice, leadership development, student organizations and activities, student government, Greek life, service-learning, and student spirituality. Lina D. Dostilio is the director of academic community engagement at Duquesne University (PA). She is responsible for administrating the university’s service-learning and community-engaged research initiatives. Her research focuses on democratically engaged, multisector partnerships. She is currently faculty within Duquesne University’s Professional Doctorate for Educational Leaders and facilitates learning about, and practice of, school-academycommunity partnerships. She is the 2014 chairperson of the International Association for Research on ServiceLearning and Community Engagement. Amie Dowling earned her MFA from Smith College (MA). She is an associate professor at the University of San Francisco (CA) and artist in residence at the San Francisco County Jails and San Quentin Prison. She has taught in the Five College Dance Department and at Amherst and Mount Holyoke Colleges. In 2001 she co-founded the Performance Project at the Hampshire and Hampden County Jails (MA). Dowling’s recently completed Well Contested Sites, a dance/theater film, examines the impact of incarceration on the body. Through a partnership with Teachers 4 Social Justice, the film is used in classrooms
throughout the United States to facilitate conversations about mass incarceration. She recently received a choreography fellowship from the Massachusetts Cultural Council and funding from Kenneth Rainin Foundation, Fonds Soziokultur, the U.S. Consulate in Leipzig, Germany, and the Haymarket Foundation. Jacob M. J. du Plessis (MA) is a lecturer in sociology and specializes in development studies, the sociology of health, and the sociology of education. His research interests are focused on community collaborative research and community development processes. He is actively involved in civil society as manager of projects for the Division of Community Interaction at Stellenbosch University, South Africa, and has been the chairperson of a variety of community engagement committees. He has also been the academic director of Northwestern University’s (IL) Public Health and Development program in South Africa for the past eight years. He has taught various service-learning courses since 2006 and has received three awards for Excellence in Teaching. He has presented papers at international service-learning conferences in South Africa, the United States, Europe, South America, and China. Meghan Wilson Duff earned her MS and PsyD in clinical psychology from Antioch University New England. Duff was selected as an Albert Schweitzer Fellow as a graduate student and continues as an active Fellow for Life focusing on addressing health disparities by developing leaders in service. She is currently an associate professor of psychology at University of Maine at Machias, where she teaches undergraduate students and works with over 20 community partners on community- and health-related issues. Her teaching interest is in helping those students interested in social change and advocacy to develop self-care and reflective practice skills. Nancy Edick currently serves as dean of the College of Education at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Her teaching and research interests include new teacher induction and culturally responsive teaching. Edick earned her EdD at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Her interest in servicelearning stems from her role as executive director of the Metropolitan Omaha Educational Consortium, a model collaboration between the college and the 12 metropolitan area school districts. Her career has focused on effective collaborations between P–12 and higher education. Sarah Edwards currently serves as the University of Nebraska Omaha chair of the Teacher Education Department. Her teaching and research interests revolve around community partnerships, culturally responsive teaching, literacy at the secondary level, and teacher dispositions. Edwards earned her PhD at the University of Arizona. Her interest in service-learning began in 1996 when she started teaching a service-learning class at
About the Contributors–•–xxiii
Utterback Middle School in South Tucson (AZ). For over a decade, she has incorporated a variety of service-learning models in her coursework at the university. Mary Jane Eisenhauer earned a BS in speech-language pathology and MSEd in education and social policy from Northwestern University (WI). She started her career as a kindergarten teacher in Chicago, Illinois, before receiving an EdD in curriculum and social inquiry, with a concentration in early childhood from National College of Education at National Louis University (IL). She is currently associate professor of education and program coordinator for early childhood education at Purdue University North Central (IN). Eisenhauer has served as a faculty fellow with Indiana Campus Compact and her work has been published in Service-Learning in Higher Education: Connecting the Global to the Local. Hoda Farahmandpour earned an MA in adult education and community development from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, Canada. She founded Wordswell Association for Community Learning, a nonprofit organization that offers educational programs for the empowerment of young people in Toronto that accompanies youths to plan, execute, and analyze social action projects within their neighborhoods. Her research interests include youth development and social change, critical pedagogy, and service-learning. Joyce Fields is professor and program director for Child and Family Studies at Columbia College (SC). Her doctorate in family relations is from Florida State University. She is the director of Columbia College’s Sophomore Year Experience. Karen Frost-Arnold earned her PhD in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh (PA). She is an assistant professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, where she teaches a service-learning course titled Ethics of Civic Engagement. Her research focuses on the epistemology and ethics of trust. Randy Gabrys-Alexson is a professor of geology at the University of Wisconsin–Superior. She holds an MS in geography from the University of Wisconsin–Superior and a PhD in geography from the Union Institute (OH). Her research interests focus on geography education at all levels, from kindergarten through university level, and working with preservice and inservice teachers. Janna L. Goodwin, earned her PhD from University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is a playwright, director, performer, and producer of original community-based work exploring how systems, communication, responsiveness, creativity, and humor reflect and impact the quality of our relationships and experiences. Her ongoing collaboration
with Modern Muse Theatre—Face: Live, Immediate and Online Theatre for Teens in a Wireless World—combines social media, video, and live performance to raise into view the process of identity formation and conflict through a performance conceptual framework (stigma, status, face, social drama). Goodwin has written about her own work using theater, dance, and dialogue in the health-care system, and about the work of others, in jails. She is an associate professor at Regis University (CO), where she teaches performance studies, intercultural communication, dialogue, and other communication classes. Cynthia Gordon da Cruz is an adjunct assistant professor in the Justice, Community and Leadership Department at Saint Mary’s College of California. Her research focuses on community-engaged scholarship, critical democratic citizenship, antiracism, and community organizing. While completing her doctorate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Gordon da Cruz was involved in a study of community organizing for education reform. This research culminated in a book in which she co-authored a chapter, A Match on Dry Grass: Organizing for Great Schools in San Jose. Previously, Gordon da Cruz has worked in multiple areas of higher education: leadership development, advising multicultural and student advocacy groups, and with the American Cultures Engaged Scholarship program at University of California, Berkeley. Lois Veenhoven Guderian received her PhD from Northwestern University (IL) and is music education coordinator and an associate professor of music at University of Wisconsin–Superior. An educator, author, composer, choral director, and clinician, Guderian has taught choral, instrumental, and general music for ages preschool through adult, authored several books and journal articles for music education, and designed numerous arts education programs for the schools. A professional composer, she serves the National Association for Music Education as an online mentor in music composition education and as an adjudicator for the NAfME (National Association for Music Education) Student Composition Competition. Resounding closely with her own philosophies in music education and civic engagement, since 2009, Guderian has incorporated academic service-learning (ASL) fieldwork into all of her music education methods classes—a total of 12 different ongoing programs and projects that address both community and educational needs. On a personal note, throughout the entirety of her professional career, she has contributed professional service weekly to the communities where she has lived. Steven M. Hart is an associate professor of literacy education at California State University, Fresno, and is the coordinator of the urban civic education minor. Hart graduated from the University of South Florida’s PhD program in reading/language arts. Hart’s passion for service-learning
xxiv–•–About the Contributors
and educational equity and justice is grounded in his extensive experience working with diverse student populations as a teacher in urban elementary schools in Norfolk, Virginia, and South San Francisco, California. He maintains this passion and extensively uses critical servicelearning pedagogy in his courses to better prepare teachers to become agents of change. Collin Hayes is a senior in the Nazareth College (NY) philosophy department, has been a student in four different service-learning classes, and served as a Nazareth College Center for Service-Learning student worker. Brandon P. Hollingshead is an instructor at Florida Gulf Coast University, where he is also on the leadership team of the Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education. His research interests are in the rhetoric of sustainability, humanities and sustainability, and servicelearning. Hollingshead’s master’s thesis at the University of Utah was Crafting Principles for Sustainable Development: Negotiations in the Drafting of the Earth Charter and Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. He has worked on a number of Earth Charter research projects and has published on youth participation in sustainable development. Syeda Zakia Hossain, earned her PhD from the University of Queensland (Australia), and is a senior lecturer in the discipline of behavioral and social sciences in health at the University of Sydney. She has taught a number of behavioral and sociology of health science courses with servicelearning. Maiya Jackson is the Upper School director at Manhattan Country School in New York City and was previously the co-director of Breakthrough Long Island, a nonprofit program where high school and college students teach motivated middle school students from underresourced schools to put them on the path to college. Her work in education reflects her interest in educational equity, social justice education, and the power of diverse communities in schools. She earned her BA at Brown University (RI) in English literature and an MA in school leadership from the Klingenstein Program at Columbia University’s Teachers College. Tomás Jacquez teaches critical service-learning at the Urban School of San Francisco (CA) where he challenges students to identify and challenge their initial assumptions around service, citizenship, culture, race, and class. Jacquez wrote his thesis on Creating Equity Consciousness and a Culture of Inquiry Within an Independent High School, in the organizational and leadership master’s degree program at the University of San Francisco. In fall of 2013, he began his doctoral work at the University of San Francisco in international and multicultural education.
Christopher D. Jensen is the director of the Office of Civic Engagement and Leadership at Towson University (MD). He recently finished his PhD at Oakland University (MI) researching the impact of service-learning experiences on the retention of students. His focus is on the factors of community service experiences associated with the theories of student departure and student engagement that impact the students’ intentions to graduate from college. He has worked in higher education for over 15 years, in the areas of leadership development, student activities, campus safety, housing, orientation, and enrollment management. In addition, he has had the opportunity connect students with the community through curricular and co-curricular experiences. Lee Jerome is lecturer at Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland. He completed his PhD at the Institute of Education, University of London (UK) where he researched the development of citizenship education policy in secondary schools in England. He published England’s Citizenship Experiment: State, School and Student Perspectives in 2012 and also edits Teaching Citizenship, the journal of the Association for Citizenship Teaching in the United Kingdom. He has taught in secondary schools in London and on teacher education courses in several universities. He currently works in the School of Education in Queen’s University Belfast, where he is a member of the Centre for Children’s Rights and contributes to the MSc in Children’s Rights. Annette Johnson teaches social work research methods and policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She earned her MSW from the Jane Addams College of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research interests include youth activism and critical service-learning and its influence on social emotional development. Professor Johnson has over 18 years of experience as a director of social work services within Chicago Public Schools. Shirin Karsan is the program director of weServe in the School of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Health Systems at Drexel University (PA). She has been volunteering her bioethics expertise and, in particular “neuroethics” knowledge to the Penn-Drexel Optical Brain Imaging team since 2006 while working at the A. J. Drexel Nanotechnology Institute. She received her master of bioethics degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests include the ethics of emerging biotechnologies, with cultural and religious perspectives, for which she received a Fulbright grant to conduct research in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Her primary research focus was on if and/or how Sunni Muslims accept the usage of modern assisted reproduction technologies in the UAE. Ann Marie Jursca Keffer is the associate director and service-learning coordinator of the Faith-Justice Institute
About the Contributors–•–xxv
at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia (PA). She earned her bachelor of science degree in psychology with minors in Spanish and theology from University of Scranton (PA), her master’s of social work from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and a certificate from University of Pennsylvania’s Robert A. Fox Leadership program. Jursca Keffer is a licensed social worker in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania who teaches and presents on service-learning pedagogy. Shenila Khoja-Moolji is a doctoral student and research fellow at Teachers College, Columbia University (NY). Her research interests include Muslim youth identity, gender and sexual citizenship, curriculum theory, postcolonial theory, and poststructuralist feminist theory. She has taught courses on Muslim cultures, gender relations, social foundations of education, and ethics of engagement at the Department of History and Philosophy at the State University of New York at Old Westbury, and the Department of Elementary and Childhood Education at Queens College, City University of New York. Prior to Columbia University, Khoja-Moolji attended the Divinity School at Harvard University where she graduated with a master of theological studies degree focusing on Islamic studies and gender. Rodmon King earned his PhD in philosophy from the University of Rochester (NY). He is an assistant professor of philosophy and faculty advisor to Sankofa, the Black Student Union at Hobart & William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York. His research focuses on ancient Greek philosophy, specifically the areas of ethics, semantics, and mental representation. Brandon W. Kliewer is an assistant professor of civic leadership in the Staley School of Leadership Studies at Kansas State University. Kliewer was formerly an assistant professor of civic engagement at Florida Gulf Coast University. He is currently working on a book length project related to community-engaged scholarship and civic leadership. He holds a PhD from the University of Georgia in political science and a master’s degree in political science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Diana E. Kolar is currently an investment banking associate at JPMorgan Chase & Co. She earned a BSBA in finance at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., where she minored in Spanish and in justice and peace studies. Kolar took numerous service-learning courses at Georgetown in both business and liberal arts and completed an undergraduate thesis titled The Business of Community-Based Learning: Incorporating Reflection, Service and Social Change Into Undergraduate Business Classes. She was also an undergraduate research fellow at the Georgetown University Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs where she worked with the
fellows to research, develop and publish a report titled When Diversity Meets the Global Market: Forging a New Generation of Business Leaders. Tim Krause began integrating service-learning projects in business communication courses as a PhD candidate at Purdue University (IN) in 1995. He is currently an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point. His teaching and research interests include project management, the role of technology in job creation, and user-centered design. Krause works with the department’s graduating seniors and encourages them to consider ways to integrate community and professional service into their professional lives. Lois-Ann Kuntz earned an MA in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of Central Florida and then specialized in human factors research while earning her PhD in sensation and cognition from the University of Florida. For the last 10 years, Kuntz has taught at the University of Maine, Machias. Her service-learning/civic engagement (SL/CE) coursework and the work of her department has received recognition by Maine Campus Compact. Kuntz advises a student group which hosts an LGBTQA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and ally) youth statewide Rainbow Ball Weekend and she facilitates faculty training for online service-learning. Ned Scott Laff is director for advising at Augustana College (IL). His doctorate in English education and educational policy is from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He was formerly director for general education and servicelearning at Columbia College (SC). He led Columbia College to Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, four presidential citations from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), and the 2012 Washington Center Award for Civic Engagement. Sophia Suk-mun Law, after gaining years of nursing experience in her first career, returned to school in 2004 to obtain a PhD in art history from the University of Hong Kong. In 2007, she developed a research interest in the relationship between art and well-being and is currently engaging in many research projects on art facilitation for specific communities, such as people with dyslexia, dementia, autism, and disabilities. She currently teaches at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. She is also dedicated to running community art projects as service-learning for college students. Darryl Mace is an associate professor at Cabrini College in Radnor, Pennsylvania. He studies cultural history, the civil rights movement, the experiences of Africans in the diaspora, media studies, popular culture, and gender theory. Mace earned his PhD in history and a graduate certificate in women’s studies from Temple University. He combines his research on race, gender, and culture with his
xxvi–•–About the Contributors
passion for community collaborative research through his role as diversity coordinator for Cabrini College’s Justice Matters curriculum and through his partnerships with local domestic violence and mental health agencies. Martin Mackey earned his PhD from the University of Sydney (Australia) and is a senior lecturer and course director in the discipline of physiotherapy at the University of Sydney. He has taught a number of subjects in physical therapy and rehabilitation counseling with service-learning. Nancy Mathias serves as the director of the Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning at St. Norbert College. She joined the college in 1990 working in the areas of experiential education, leadership development, and service-learning programs. She earned her master’s degree in education from Cardinal Stritch University. Cassandra McKay-Jackson earned her PhD from the University of Illinois at Chicago in the College of Education (Curriculum and Instruction). Her research interests include critical service-learning, youth activism, and its influence on social emotional development. She teaches practice, policy, and research within the College of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Chicago. McKayJackson has worked in the field as a clinical practitioner with youth, adults, and families. Heather McRae is associate professor and associate dean of engaged learning at the University of Alberta (Canada). Her doctoral work at Simon Fraser University focused on the role of continuing education in supporting community engagement. Her current research explores the institutional and community conditions and requirements necessary for maintaining and developing the commitment to community engagement. She is involved in a number of research projects, including a pan-Canadian assessment measuring the impact of engagement on communities. Mandi R. McReynolds is the first director of community engagement and service-learning at Drake University (IA). She has spent her career building service-learning and leadership programs at three different institutions in Iowa. She received her BA in organizational communications from Cedarville University and MS in interdisciplinary studies from Iowa State University. Mandi was honored with the 2011 Iowa Campus Compact Engaged Staff Award, 2012 Iowa Student Personnel Association Outstanding Service Award, and 2012 Upper Midwest Region ACU-HO Social Justice in Action Award. Her research interests include student agency development and the career development of community service-learning professionals. Tynisha D. Meidl is an assistant professor at St. Norbert College (WI). She teaches undergraduate courses focused
on reading development in the elementary and middle school. Meidl received her bachelor’s and doctoral degrees from Pennsylvania State University. She taught elementary school in South Texas and in Baltimore (MD) city public schools. Most of her research focuses on developing teachers of reading for diverse contexts. For the past four years, Meidl has offered an academic service-learning course for early childhood and elementary education majors. E. Nicole Meyer is chair of the Department of English and Foreign Languages and professor of French at Georgia Regents University in Augusta, Georgia. After earning an MA from the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the University of Pennsylvania, she completed her PhD in romance languages and literatures at the University of Pennsylvania. Currently at work on a book project, Fractured Families in Contemporary French and Francophone Women’s Autobiographies, she is author of numerous publications on FLES (foreign languages at the elementary school), business French, Flaubert, French and Francophone women’s autobiography, 20th-century French literature, and biography. She is a longtime member of the American Association of Teachers of French FLES Commission and serves on innumerable commissions and committees at local and national levels. Michael Millington earned his PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and is the course director and senior lecturer in the discipline of rehabilitation counseling at the University of Sydney (Australia). He is servicelearning placement coordinator and previously conducted knowledge dissemination leadership with the U.S. National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials. Kate A. Molchan earned her JD from Case Western Reserve University (OH). While there, she also graduated with a master’s in bioethics. She worked in higher education for one year at the West Virginia University as assistant general counsel for health sciences before enrolling at Duquesne University (PA) to obtain a PhD in healthcare ethics. She is currently entering her second year of the doctoral program and simultaneously working in the Office of Service-Learning as a teaching assistant and Community Engagement Scholars Program manager. Elias Mpofu has a PhD from the University of Wisconsin– Madison and a DEd from the University of Pretoria, South Africa. He is professor and head of discipline of rehabilitation counseling at the University of Sydney, and interimchair of the Rehabilitation Psychology Interest Group of the Australian Psychological Society. He has published research on service-learning as pedagogy for health sciences education. James Mullooly is an associate professor of anthropology at California State University, Fresno and is the director of
About the Contributors–•–xxvii
the Institute for Public Anthropology. Mullooly graduated from Teacher College, Columbia University’s (NY) PhD Program in anthropology and education. Mullooly is a specialist in applied anthropology and qualitative research methodology. He has conducted years of research in rural and urban underserved populations in the schools and homes of those students. His work with Latino populations in New York, Wisconsin, and California illustrates sensitivity to the local context and its value in better understanding the larger patterns at play in society. Jennifer Garrett Nissen currently serves as the assistant director of community service and learning in the Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning at St. Norbert College (WI). She works with TRIPS (Turning Responsibility into Powerful Service) and Michels Hall Service Program, a residential service program. She received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida in human resource development and her master’s in higher education administration at Florida State University. In 2011, Nissen received her doctorate in educational leadership and policy studies from Iowa State University. She has worked at a large public institution, an institution for women, and two religiously affiliated colleges. Nicholas Rademacher is an associate professor at Cabrini College in Radnor, Pennsylvania. He researches North American Catholicism and Catholic social teaching. Rademacher earned his PhD in religious studies from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and has been teaching courses that explore lived religious traditions as well as religious radicalism—especially the Catholic peace movement—in the work of Paul Hanly Furfey, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, and the Berrigan brothers. He continues to foster rich community collaborations (for his students and himself) with the intentional Christian community, Norristown (PA) Community House, and the local homeless outreach center. Rosemary C. Reilly worked in cooperative daycares and nursery schools for many years before attending Concordia University (Canada) in 1987 to obtain a certificate in family life education. This proved to be a turning point in her career, from working with young children to working with families, schools, and organizations. She went on to earn a PhD in educational psychology from McGill (Canada) and became tenured at Concordia in 2009. Her particular research interest is exploring learning as a lever for change with individuals, organizations, and communities. Rosemary employs an experiential teaching approach, which emphasizes the whole person and has been engaged with civic engagement, service-learning (CESL) since 1991. Jessica J. Rhea is the director of community engagement at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU). Under her leadership there has been substantial growth in the number of
faculty implementing service-learning into their coursework, students engaging in service-learning experiences, and community partners being added to the university’s service-learning database. Her work in this field has earned FGCU much recognition. In 2011, FGCU’s Office of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement was awarded the Washington Center’s Higher Education Civic Engagement Award and Florida Campus Compact’s Engaged Campus of the Year award. FGCU has also been included on the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll with Distinction. Reid Richard Riggle is an associate professor at St. Norbert College (WI). He earned a BA in psychology and K–8 certification from Coe College (IA) and a MA and PhD in educational psychology from the University of Iowa. He is the co-founder and leader of the Village Project. Kristin Riker-Coleman is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Superior. She holds an MS in geological sciences from Ohio State University and a PhD in geology from the University of Minnesota. She currently teaches in the Earth Science Program, focusing on the field of environmental geology, and is interested in how the changing climate is recorded in the geologic record. Keith E. Robinder received his MS in student affairs and higher education from Colorado State University. He has worked in student affairs at both private and public institutions, from community colleges to research universities. As the director of student life and community engagement at Laramie County (WY) Community College, he co-founded the service-learning program, infusing a culture of civic engagement across all curricular and co-curricular areas. He recently completed his PhD in educational leadership at Colorado State. Dr. Robinder currently serves as associate dean of students at Iowa State University where he also enjoys teaching in the School of Education. Helen Rosenberg earned a PhD in sociology from Northwestern University (IL) in 1989. Currently, she is professor at the University of Wisconsin–Parkside. She teaches courses in the sociology of mental illness, substance use and abuse, and social gerontology, but focuses her research on outcomes of community-based learning and its impact on students, faculty, and community partners. She heads the Gerontology Certificate Program and coordinates the Community-Based Learning Certificate. J. Ashleigh Ross, Community-University Exchange fellow, University of Wisconsin–Madison, is a PhD candidate in the environment and resources program in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. Ross’s dissertation research focus is on the impacts of
xxviii–•–About the Contributors
campus-community partnerships in the post-Katrina recovery of New Orleans (LA). Laurelyn Sandkamp is a graduate student in the Urban and Regional Planning program at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Sandkamp earned her bachelor of arts degree from the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire. Her research explores the sustainability of food systems and her community work promotes food security and food justice. Marie G. Sandy, PhD, is assistant professor of educational policy and community studies at University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee where she teaches service-learning oriented courses on philosophy of education, community-academic partnerships, and community organizing. Her research interests involve humanities-based approaches to social change and community engagement. She previously directed a community- and service-learning immersion program at Pitzer College (CA), and later coordinated California Campus Compact’s project on community partner perspectives in community-academic partnerships. She is involved presently with research designed to overcome family homelessness, a passion ignited through her involvement in a community-academic partnership. She earned her PhD in education at Claremont (CA) Graduate University. Molly Sarubbi is a doctoral student in the University of Denver’s (CO) School of Education. She earned her master’s of science in student development and was a former Center for Service-Learning graduate student intern. Margaret Sass is the assistant director of service-learning at Purdue University (IN). She received her juris doctor from Western State University College of Law in California and her doctorate in curriculum and instruction at Boise (ID) State University. Sass has been teaching communications and law in higher education for the last 12 years and is currently teaching online. Most of her research focuses on the outcomes of service-learning on college students. She is also an assistant professor (by courtesy) at Purdue University. Courtney Dwyer Satkoski is an instructor at Florida Gulf Coast University. She began her career as an environmental education resource instructor and internship coordinator and focused on integrating STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education programs into Lee County (FL) Schools. Her interests include ecological, communal, and economic sustainability and community engagement. She holds a master’s degree in public administration from Florida Gulf Coast University and began the FGCU Malaria Project in 2009 to improve the quality of lives of people living in remote villages in countries in the African continent.
Karen Schwartz is an associate professor at Carleton University (Canada) in social work. Her areas of research involve community-engaged scholarship, field education, mental health, and social work pedagogy. She has fostered community university partnerships including an ongoing relationship with the Somali Family Service Centre and international student practica. Schwartz is currently involved in teaching a research course where students engage in community-based research and a study funded by a grant from the government of Canada exploring the benefits to the community from campus engagement. She co-authored Research for Social Justice: A CommunityBased Approach. She earned her PhD from Columbia University in New York. Jason C. Senjem is an assistant professor at St. Ambrose University in Davenport, IA. He earned an MS in human resources from Purdue University (IN) and a PhD in business administration from the University of Colorado Boulder. His research is concerned with how organizations use innovative work practices to create economic, social, and environmental value. Senjem has taught management at Syracuse (NY) University and St. Norbert College (WI) and for the past seven years has incorporated academic service-learning into his introductory and elective courses. He has presented on service-learning at the Academy of Management Conference. John Shepherd has taught at Canada’s Northwest Community College, College of New Caledonia, Laurentian University, and for the past four years at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. He earned an MBA from the University of British Columbia, an MSc with Distinction from Heriot–Watt University (Scotland), and is a Certified General Accountant. He served on the boards of the Prince Rupert Airport Authority, Northwest Community College, and the Prince George Public Library. He is a past president of the Rotary Club of North Delta and vice-chair of the Surrey Public Library. In 2014, the British Columbia Library Trustee Association awarded him with the Nancy Bennett Award. Ilya Shodjaee-Zrudlo studies in the department of educational psychology and adult education at the University of Montreal (Canada). For many years, he has been involved in youth programming as an animator, trainer, and coordinator in the Montreal region. His research interests include the philosophy of moral empowerment, service-learning, the philosophy of science, methodology in the social sciences, knowledge production in organizations and social movements, and youth organizing. Marian Slaughter, Community-University Exchange fellow, University of Wisconsin–Madison, is a PhD candidate in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the School of Education. Slaughter’s dissertation research
About the Contributors–•–xxix
focuses on discourses of nation-state crisis and mathematics education reform. She is also licensed by the State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing as an instructor. Antoinette Smith-Tolken (PhD) heads the Office for Service-Learning and Community-based Research at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. In this capacity, she is primarily responsible for enhancing the scholarship of engagement of academic staff through training and support programs with secondary graduate teaching responsibilities. She plays a leading role in the proliferation of servicelearning and community engagement in South Africa. Smith-Tolken has presented at conferences in South Africa, Australia, Europe, the United States, and China over the past 10 years and co-chaired two international symposiums and a national colloquium. She is one of the co-founders of the International Symposium: Service-Learning, offered for the fifth time in 2013 in Stellenbosch. Her research record reflects several national and international publications. Linda M. Thibodeau is an associate professor at the University of Texas at Dallas. She earned her PhD from the University of Minnesota. Current research interests include the relationship between psychoacoustic processing and possible benefits from amplification circuits and the evaluation of auditory training approaches and assistive devices designed to enhance speech recognition. Janis Timm-Bottos is a community art maker, art therapist, and assistant professor at Concordia University in Montreal (Canada). She is collaborator and founder of six community art studios, including ArtStreet and OFFCenter Arts in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and La Ruche d’Art St Henri and Studio d’Art St Sulpice in Montreal. Her current research practice includes networking with other universities and communities across Canada to spread the ideas of the art hive and helping to initiate these small and sustainable sites of creative renewal in every neighborhood. She earned her PhD in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. J. Estrella Torrez is an assistant professor at Michigan State University. She earned her PhD in language, literacy, and sociocultural studies with a concentration in bilingual education from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarship centers on language politics and the importance of community-based knowledge, particularly among rural migrant families and urban indigenous youth in the Great Lakes region. She currently works closely with Michigan State University’s Migrant Student Service program and the Lansing (MI) School District’s bilingual/bicultural programs to create academic enrichment programming. Elizabeth Tryon is assistant director for community-based learning at the Morgridge Center for Public Service,
University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her interests in community-based learning and research focus on community impact and engaged scholarship for academic staff. She facilitates projects; develops curriculum; administrates academic service and research programs globally; teaches; and presents on her work in the United States, Canada, and Europe. She chairs the Community-University Exchange program and co-chairs the Wisconsin Without Borders (WWB) Initiative. Adje van de Sande is an associate professor at Carleton University (Canada) in social work. He teaches research methods, statistics, and social work theory at the undergraduate and graduate levels and quantitative analysis at the PhD level. He co-authored Research for Social Justice: A Community-Based Approach. From 2003 to 2007, he was president of the Canadian Association for Social Work Education. He has over 30 years of practice and research experience and has published more than a dozen research reports and journal articles in the area of child poverty and Aboriginal child welfare. He earned his PhD from Wilfred Laurier University (Ontario). Leela Viswanathan is an assistant professor at the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. After a decade of working as a planner and social policy analyst in government and notfor-profit sectors, she earned a PhD in environmental studies from York University in Toronto. Her interdisciplinary research practice focuses on indigenous approaches to planning, immigration, postcolonial theories, and planning pedagogy. Experiential learning is foundational to her teaching practice and she builds curricula on principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). She is a registered professional planner in Ontario and a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. Marie Watkins is a professor at Nazareth College, Rochester, New York. She graduated from Syracuse University with a master’s in marriage and family therapy, a master’s in social work, and a doctorate in child and family studies. She was director of the Center for ServiceLearning from 2002 to 2013 and is currently director of the Community Youth Development Program at Nazareth College. Nancy Watterson is an associate professor at Cabrini College in Radnor, Pennsylvania. She is a folklorist passionate about engaged ethnography, social justice, and community-based collaborative research. Watterson received her PhD in folklore and folklife from the University of Pennsylvania and has been teaching courses that combine arts and protest, community building, and social change for many years: in Cabrini College’s (PA) distinctive Justice Matters curriculum and previous to that, through affiliation with the Princeton (NJ) Community
xxx–•–About the Contributors
Based Learning Initiative (CBLI), and as part of the University of Pennsylvania’s academically based servicelearning courses. Carol Wickersham worked with grassroots, national, and global social justice initiatives for over 30 years as an ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.), having received her MDiv from Pacific School of Religion (CA). She taught as an adjunct faculty at San Francisco Theological Seminary. Currently at Beloit College (WI), she is an instructor in the sociology department, coordinator of the Duffy Community Partnerships, and director of the Office of Community-Based Learning in the Liberal Arts in Practice Center.
Sarah Wilkes-Gillan (BAppSc, Occupational Therapy, hons) is a PhD candidate and postgraduate teaching fellow at the University of Sydney (Australia). Her research has been serving as service-learning placement coordinator for the Service Learning Core in the Faculty of Health Sciences. Allan Wilson, currently the university librarian at the University of Northern British Columbia in Canada, was formerly chief librarian of the Prince George and Prince Rupert Public Libraries. He has a master’s of library science from the University of Toronto and was a former PhD student at the University of Toronto, with an expertise in Russian library classification systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
F
rom Omobolade Delano-Oriaran: My thanks to my parents, Grace Ebunoluwa and Isaac Babatunde Delano, for laying the foundation and preparing me to be community engaged. I acknowledge my husband, Dr. T. Philips Oriaran, for supporting my journey as a community-engaged scholar. My love to my daughter, Oluwafeyikemi, for her patience when Mummy is “working.” My appreciation to my siblings, Yejide and Idowu Wyse, Fola and Funke Delano, and Lola and Yinka Abinusawa, their children, and numerous nieces and nephews for their consistent support. I thank St. Norbert College for providing me with a sabbatical to dedicate time to this book. My thanks to my friends and colleagues who always believe in me. Most importantly, I give honor to God for the blessings in my life. From Marguerite W. Penick-Parks: My thanks to Dr. Bola Delano-Oriaran, without whom this book would not have happened. Thank you to my daughters, Maggie, Lizbet, Adele, and Danae for always believing in me and supporting me. My thanks to my brothers, George and Worth, and my program assistant, Mary, who always has a smile on her face. Most of all, I thank my mother and father, Marguerite and George, who were always there for me the value of human dignity. From Suzanne Fondrie: Thank you to Bola and Marguerite for their work on this volume and in furthering
diverse perspectives in teacher education. I acknowledge my family’s understanding about providing time to focus on editing. Finally, thank you to the service-learning partners who have joined together, often on their own time and at their own expense, to create something more than just another academic course. From all of us: Appreciation to the authors who contributed to this sourcebook and worked on numerous drafts. Our gratitude to Dr. Barbara Jacoby for believing in our project and writing the foreword for this publication. We thank our editorial board members who provided critical reviews and input. We also thank the following people for their contributions to the Resource Guide section of the appendixes: Kristen Berger, Lindsay Blumer, Mary Jane Eisenhauer, Maiya Jackson, Mandi R. McReynolds, Tim Krause, Lois Ann Knutz, Meghan Wilson Duff, St. Norbert College Teacher Education student workers, other chapter authors who inspired the resources, and everyone involved in the revision process. Sincere appreciation to Jim BraceThompson, who nurtured the idea of a book proposal. We are grateful to our developmental editor, Shirin Parsavand, for her invaluable contributions. To the SAGE family, thank you! Your patience, professionalism, and respect for scholarship are appreciated. Finally, we thank our students and all the community partners out there who inspire us to stay engaged.
xxxi
FOREWORD
S
ince I began my journey with service-learning in 1992, it has become a permanent part of the landscape of both K–12 and higher education. We have amassed considerable evidence of its benefits for students and communities. Service-learning is integrated into the curriculum and the co-curriculum, long-term campuscommunity partnerships, organizational infrastructure, base budgets, faculty research, and even the tenure and promotion process. Institutions around the world engage deeply with their communities to achieve common goals and to promote sustainable economic development. My state, Maryland, was the first to establish service-learning as a requirement for graduation from public secondary schools. Service-learning is one of the high-impact educational practices identified by the Association of American Colleges and Universities as having been widely tested and shown to be beneficial to college students from a wide variety of backgrounds. U.S. News & World Report’s influential college rankings include service-learning as an outstanding academic program that leads to student success. Campus Compact, the organization of college presidents who have committed their institutions to public service and community engagement, has more than 1,100 institutional members and 34 state affiliates. Service-learning and civic engagement motivate students to learn course content thoroughly and deeply. Acquiring knowledge for its own sake rarely motivates students, and learning can only occur if students are engaged. Boredom and disengagement during lectures and other traditional classroom activities are commonplace. Service-learning and civic engagement are, by their nature, active learning. Because they address real issues and needs, students are more likely to invest time and effort in their learning. Students engage with faculty, peers, and community members about substantive matters and discover the relevance of their learning through real-world experiences. Students who participate in high-quality service-learning and civic engagement have the opportunity to see and act on the problems individuals and communities face, engage in dialogue and problem solving with the people most
affected, and reflect on how they will be civically engaged citizens, scholars, and leaders throughout their lives. When we engage students in reflection related to their experiences, they can see the interdisciplinary nature of problems and solutions, the complexity of the social fabric, and how they can choose to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. A student once told me that servicelearning enabled her to test out theories in real time, in real places, with real people, and with real consequences. Through civic engagement, students can come to understand the difference between helping someone through direct service and becoming involved in public policy and political work that can foster change. They learn about the levers of social change that are available to them as citizens of a democratic society and how to use them in their work with community leaders and members. However, some of the leading scholars and practitioners in the field believe that service-learning and civic engagement work has stalled. Some point to fragmentation and drift. Others lament that elementary school teachers are forced to “teach to the test” while our work in higher education has not fulfilled Ernest Boyer’s call for higher education “to serve a larger purpose” (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011). Others note that we have been doing civically engaged work for years and our country is even more unjust than ever before. As for me, I do not believe that our work has stalled. However, I do believe that we must be reflective practitioners in order to continue to move it forward. We must walk the walk of critically reflecting on our work as we encourage our students to do. In the workshops and consultations I do on campuses around the country and around the world, I am asked many questions, from the most basic to the most complex, by faculty members, students, community partners, administrators, and staff. Those who are considering whether they should engage in the work of service-learning and civic engagement ask questions: When is service-learning the right pedagogy for a course? Is this work academically rigorous? Why should I consider this approach for my courses? Those who are deeply engaged frequently encounter its most challenging questions and difficult dilemmas: Is social xxxiii
xxxiv–•–Foreword
justice the ultimate purpose of service-learning and civic engagement? Can community partnerships really be relationships among equals? Should the focus of servicelearning be local or global? How can we educate students for global citizenship through service-learning? In my recent book, Service-Learning Essentials: Questions, Answers, and Lessons Learned (Jacoby, 2014), I take the stance that is incumbent upon us to respond to questions like these by incorporating the most fundamental principles and practices of our work to as we continuously question and challenge their relevance as service-learning evolves to meet changing local and global needs. I believe that we must also “trouble” and “problematize” our work to deeply and critically reflect on its complexities in order to advance our practice in ways that allow us to fully reap its potential benefits for students, communities, and campuses. I enthusiastically welcome The SAGE Sourcebook of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement for many reasons, one of which is that it thoughtfully responds to questions like these. Omobolade Delano-Oriaran, Marguerite W. Penick-Parks, and Suzanne Fondrie have assembled an outstanding group of chapter authors who invite us to step back from our daily work and to look carefully and intentionally into what we do and why we do it. They pose and respond to many questions that I believe we must address if we are to make meaning of our work, to shape its direction and focus. Without a clear vision and focus, we risk the potential of “just doing” or, worse yet, fulfilling the prophecy that our service-learning and civic engagement work has stalled. The sourcebook begins with a section on the foundations of our work. I was delighted to see that the opening chapter by Mandi McReynolds focuses on developing practitioner-scholars for the future of community engagement. It sets the tone for this provocative and inspiring volume and appropriately challenges readers with its opening question: “Will you consider embracing a larger vision of yourself as a practitioner-scholar?” In contrast to focusing on the definition, history, and foundational principles of service-learning as I do in the first chapter of ServiceLearning Essentials, the authors of the chapters in Part I of this book address our work through original perspectives, including the theory of practical beauty, epistemologies of ignorance, critical democratic citizenship, and the power of student activism. Following practical sections on using and applying civic engagement and service-learning in Parts II and III, Part IV is about community partnerships, starting with the basics of finding the right partners for courses, moving through purposeful examples, and ending with a chapter on the need for a paradigm shift in our approach to campus-community partnerships. I will share these insights with my community partners and look forward to our ensuing conversations. Parts V through VIII address on point the questions I am most frequently asked by faculty members in regard to academic rigor and how service-learning and civic engagement can work in their disciplines. In regard to academic
rigor, Jeffrey Howard advanced a set of principles for service-learning pedagogy in 2001. The second of these principles states, “Do not compromise academic rigor” (Howard, 2001, p. 16). The principles strongly emphasize such rigorous practices as awarding academic credit for learning, not for doing service; explicitly stating learning goals and criteria for selection of service sites; thoroughly preparing students for learning from the community; and equating the value of community learning with classroom learning. The chapters that describe courses in many disciplines that engage elementary through doctoral students demonstrate clearly and definitively that considering service-learning and civic engagement to be “soft” or “fluffy” is a gross misperception. In fact, as these enlightening examples show, student participants in these experiences must master academic content as they do in traditional courses but must also to apply it in community settings. When I introduce faculty members to service-learning and civic engagement, I find it helpful to compare the community experience to a text and describe how it can be integral to teaching and learning. In this analogy promulgated in 1996 by Keith Morton, the community experience is a potential text for a course. Faculty members select texts, or service experiences, that they believe to be most effective in enabling students to learn and apply course content. Experience in the community is certainly not a text in the traditional sense, given that it is “written” concurrently with the course. However, thinking of community experience as text has several practical benefits. First, it suggests that such an experience is equivalent to traditional texts in learning potential and that both the community experience and other course materials are, in fact, course content. The text analogy also implies that faculty members decide which texts, or experiences, are appropriate for the course and how much experience, or “reading,” that students are required to do. Another consideration is whether the text, or community experience, is required or optional. Faculty members assign “readings” (i.e., community experiences), determining whether to use complete texts (i.e., intensive work with a single organization) or an anthology (i.e., several short experiences with different organizations). In addition, they create structures for students to read, analyze, and discuss the text. In the development of any course, most faculty members consider a wide range of possible texts and pedagogies and select those that are most likely to enable students to achieve the learning outcomes. Neither should be simply added to an existing course. Faculty members should seek to replace current texts and assignments with community experiences, or “texts,” that are more likely to facilitate student learning and achievement of course objectives. This applies particularly to service-learning and civic engagement. The sourcebook offers excellent examples that are helpful for faculty who teach in all disciplines and at all levels. In one such example, Jason C. Senjem, in Chapter 28, addresses head on the three service-learning myths in management education, which are endemic in
Foreword–•–xxxv
most other disciplines as well: Students and faculty do not feel that their business skills are useful in their service, they believe service is “touchy-feely,” and they fear that service takes time away from content learning. The most pressing question that I am regularly asked by faculty members about service-learning and civic engagement is this: How could they work in my discipline? To begin to answer this question, an example is worth a thousand words. I am delighted that The SAGE Sourcebook of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement provides many examples of just how they can work and work well to achieve a wide range of desired student learning outcomes. Aware that my own discipline is French language and literature, many faculty colleagues in the languages have approached me with their skepticism about how servicelearning and civic engagement can work in their courses. Those in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields often tell me that they are sure that servicelearning works just fine in the humanities and the social sciences but that it just doesn’t fit with their courses. Examples in the sourcebook ranging from health sciences to engineering to technology happily prove them wrong. In regard to some of the most critical questions in the field, Part IX on international service-learning provides a stimulating glimpse into how service-learning across the globe is flourishing, albeit in a wide variety of forms and models, on every continent except Antarctica and in a staggering array of nations. American concepts and practices of service-learning may not always serve well in international settings. While the reverse may also be true, there is no doubt that U.S.-based service-learning educators have much to learn from our international counterparts. The experiences and scholarship of our international colleagues open the door for those of us in the United States to take a critical view of things we have often held to be self-evident. A thought-provoking example is Chapter 49 by Antoinette R. Smith-Tolken and Jacob M. J. du Plessis from Stellenbosch University in which they examine reflection from a South African perspective. They challenge the prevailing view that John Dewey is the “father” of service-learning reflection, contend that his view of reflection is only one of many, and offer findings from their research on the central role of emotion in reflection.
In the final section on sustainability, the chapter authors offer lessons learned and thoughts on the future directions of our work. In Chapter 52, Walter W. Cannon and Cheri Doane of Central College home in appropriately on holistic partnerships, using their institution as an example of how colleges and universities must rethink the structures, paradigms, and other forces that stand in the way of transformation from current practice to the realm of truly reciprocal campus-community partnerships. Among the other future directions we must focus on are how to fully integrate our work at the institutional and departmental levels (Chapters 54 and 55) and what we can learn from the lived experiences of service-learners (Chapter 57). As I reflect again and again on the questions raised and lessons learned from the sourcebook, I keep coming back to the overwhelming impression that service-learning and civic engagement have the potential to reinvigorate our teaching and remind us why we fell in love with our disciplines to begin with. Along with our students, they enable us to ponder how our discipline can address the most serious challenges facing our society. The exceptional work that the contributors and editors of The SAGE Sourcebook of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement have generously shared with us positively reinforces my confidence that service-learning and civic engagement will continue to grow and flourish. Both U.S. and global society face a growing number of complex, intertwined, entrenched, and divisive problems. Our only chance of addressing these local and global problems— wicked problems, as they have come to be known—is if educators at all levels prepare the socially responsible citizens, scholars, and leaders of the future. I am grateful for the profound reflections, case studies, and challenging questions the authors of this volume share with us. Thanks to all of you as well for making us feel that we are well supported and in good company as we begin or deepen our adventures in service-learning and civic engagement.
References and Further Readings
Morton, K. (1996). Integrating service-learning into the curriculum. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2012). To serve a larger purpose: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education. Philadelphia, PA.: Temple University Press.
Howard, J. (Ed.). (2001). Michigan journal of community service learning service-learning course design workbook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan OCSL Press. Jacoby, B. (2014). Service-learning essentials: Questions, answers, and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Barbara Jacoby University of Maryland
INTRODUCTION COMMUNITY-ENGAGED, COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING APPROACHES We Serve to Learn and Learn to Serve
M
any years ago, I decided to take some of my college students—mostly White and middle class— into a school in a racially diverse urban community to engage them in service-learning with the goal of increasing racial awareness, developing cultural competencies, and deconstructing any of their existing prejudices. After three years of this service-learning project, and after critically examining some students’ reflections and my own pedagogy, I temporarily ended the project as it failed to meet the desired objectives. Some students came back from the field with more stereotypes than ever. This revelation shocked me, but it started a journey of reflecting on my own pedagogical practices to unlearn and relearn appropriate community-engaged learning practices. This journey started in 2005 when I was approached by a community resident (now a partner) about concerns that many European American (Caucasian/White) parents encountered in raising their African American/Black children as a result of transracial adoption. She expressed the need for support in addressing some of their concerns. I was professionally and, yes, emotionally drawn to her and these issues as I thought about the disproportionate number of Black children “caught” in the web of the U.S. foster care system. Our relationship began as we partnered in exploring and addressing these concerns. This relationship guided my journey as I unlearned and relearned appropriate methods of community engagement. While this nine-year journey is not yet complete, it has resulted in a service-learning learning opportunity that involves
White parents, African American children and professionals, and social workers partnering with my college students (preservice teachers) in a Black Heritage program focusing on Black history and awareness (Delano-Oriaran, 2012). My journey of “joys, trials, tribulations” has been seasoned with thoughts of “how-to, what-if, and oh no!” Ultimately, engaging in this work with community members planted the seeds for this sourcebook on servicelearning and civic engagement. Service-learning is a pedagogical approach that allows students to engage in intentional, structured activities in the community by linking and applying course learning goals with activities meaningful to the community. Servicelearning is credit-bearing, guided by teaching faculty, rooted in the academic curriculum, and supported with structured prereflections and postreflections. As scholars and practitioners, we are now grounded in field-based research that enables us to assert that community service is not and should not be equated with service-learning. Community service is volunteering in the community with no direct relationship or application to course curricula, learning goals, structured reflections, and acquisition of skills. Civic engagement is also a pedagogical practice that involves direct or indirect action taken to address public issues, which results in promoting and improving the quality of life for individuals and the community. Like service-learning, civic engagement involves building multicultural and crosscultural relationships; social justice; political leadership; individual, collective, and community action; and advocacy (Adler & Goggin, 2005; Jacoby, 2009). xxxvii
xxxviii–•–Introduction
Some scholars contend that service-learning is part of civic engagement, while others have used the two interchangeably (Delano-Oriaran, 2015), with scholars such as Thomas Klak and Emma Gaalaas Mullaney (2013) differentiating between both pedagogies. There is no consensus on the definition of civic engagement; however, I emphasize political action, participation, and engagement. Both service-learning and civic engagement involve learning in and with the community and are linked and reflected in newer, still-evolving pedagogical models (Welch, 2009); thus, our editorial team chose to title the sourcebook Service-Learning and Civic Engagement. This title takes into consideration that as we serve to learn or learn to serve (Steinberg, Bringle, & Williams, 2010), we become civically engaged, empowered, and caring with communities. In other words, service-learning and civic engagement constitute community-engaged learning as students are engaged and learning from the community and within the community. Thus, within the context of this introduction, I have adopted using the terminology community-engaged learning when appropriate to represent and include the varied terminologies in this publication. What is undebatable about service-learning and civic engagement is that they are credit-bearing, intentional, and structured. Further, they link curriculum goals with meaningful service opportunities that are derived from the community and with the community. The community is at the center of the servicerelated goals and must be at the center of learning. This sourcebook is intended for faculty, staff, administrators, school districts, center directors, and students who are pondering or currently linking their curriculum with structured community engagement, as well as for readers who are simply curious about the subject. The SAGE Sourcebook of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement provides many theoretical and practical models, guides, ideas, and resources that can be immediately adapted, adopted, and used. It is a multidisciplinary book by authors from K–12 and Institution of Higher Education (IHE) communities written from first- and third-person perspectives. What is evident throughout is the passion that all the colleagues have as they are immersed in using this pedagogical approach.
Organization of the Sourcebook The sourcebook is a collection of 58 chapters organized under 10 different parts. The chapters are laid out into 10 parts to empower readers to go directly into subject areas that apply to their needs, concerns, or curricula interests. Each part provides chapters that describe theoretical frameworks; literature reviews discussing current issues, practices, problems, and solutions; policy implications; sample syllabi; suggested further readings; and an array of resources, such as organizations that may assist with infusing this pedagogical technique into the work or scholarly
interests of a school or course of study. To emerging scholars or practitioners in this field, my co-editors and I use this book to plant a seed, to invite you to engage in servicelearning and civic engagement. To seasoned colleagues, we share best practices to enhance your work, taking into consideration that it takes a village to engage.
Part I Part I describes the foundations of service-learning and civic engagement; thus, it offers the basis from which to explain and engage in this pedagogical approach. It provides the historical, contemporary, philosophical, and moral foundations of service-learning and civic engagement. It features contributions from K–12 and IHE institutions that engage readers to be critically conscious of models to use. It offers frameworks to redefine or rethink our traditional views of service-learning and civic engagement. Further, it suggests models to consider that are rooted in community building, social justice, and critical democratic citizenship. As this part lays the groundwork for those seeking to engage in this pedagogical technique, it features additional overlooked aspects, noting what to consider when engaging in service-learning, ethical decision making, and pedagogy. It begins in Chapter 1 with Mandi McReynolds challenging us to join in this journey of engagement, infusing theory with practice, to act as practitioner-scholars rather than bystanders. In Chapter 2, Marie Sandy delicately provides and critiques theoretical philosophical developments, while in Chapter 3, Rodmon King presents us with the case for considering and infusing virtue ethics in our classroom practices. Chapter 4 then supplements this using a framework supported with exercises by Lindsay Blumer for helping students reflect on their values and ethics. As students reflect, in Chapter 5, Karen FrostArnold helps them to intricately unpack any ignorance that they may have while engaged in the community. Chapters 6 through 11 position practices for rethinking service-learning and civic engagement. In Chapter 6, Omobolade Delano-Oriaran offers an overview of the varied terminologies and recommends community-engaged learning as an inclusive, general terminology for pedagogies that link course content and goals acquired in the classroom with needs that are meaningful to the community. In Chapter 7, Hoda Farahmandpour and Ilya ShodjaeeZrudlo extend the discussion of redefining service-learning by sharing ideas that faculty could use in their classrooms to situate learning. Chapters 8 through 11 illustrate efforts to critically redefine service-learning using a social justice approach. In Chapter 8, Kristin Berger and Maiya Jackson provide first a literature review of traditional and critical conceptions of service-learning, then a case for critical servicelearning as a basis for contextualizing their work with seventh and eighth graders at a New York City school.
Introduction–•–xxxix
They illustrate how social justice issues discussed in class inform and empower students to be civically minded activists and change agents. In Chapter 9, Amy Argenal and Tomás Jacquez describe a journey of infusing social justice education into a fouryear service-learning program at a San Francisco high school. They describe critical service-learning and social justice, an approach that is rooted in highlighting issues of power in society and that helps students to be self-aware and empowered to be societal change agents. Argenal and Jacquez detail how they apply the critical service-learning and social justice pedagogy in their courses: ninth-grade Identity and Ethnic Studies, 10th-grade Service-Learning: Identity and Community Partnerships, 11th-grade ServiceLearning Independent Internship and Seminar: Identity at Urban and Beyond, and 12th-grade Service-Learning: Independent Community Engagement and Synthesis Seminar. The authors address the privileges that may be associated with opportunities to implement courses of this nature. In Chapter 10, J. Estrella Torrez discusses a bicultural and bilingual civic engagement undergraduate course that engaged ethnic-majority White, middle-class students with bilingual, Latina/o, farmworker students to work together with the aim of bridging two campus communities. The approach weaves in the personal experiences of the author as a former seasonal farmworker and the theoretical perspectives of the author as a scholar in language, literacy, and sociocultural studies with a concentration in bilingual education. The author outlines the authentic practices applied in creating safe and multilingual spaces with the goal of building community. Part I ends with Chapter 11, where Cynthia Gordon da Cruz addresses the challenges IHEs face in preparing U.S. students to be civically engaged for democracy and justice. She proposes well-defined civic engagement goals and learning outcomes that are characterized by participation, openness to multiple perspectives, controversy with civility, active thinking, justice orientation, and structural thinking about racial inequality. Gordon da Cruz’s work is critical to the work of community engagement, especially because a majority of the community partners that most institutions collaborate with are from racially and culturally diverse communities. Using the analogy of a thriving tree with healthy branches, leaves, and fruits as a result of its solid foundation—the roots—Part I represents the roots. It provides historical, philosophical, social, and cultural underlying principles to consider in using curricula incorporating community-engaged learning and engagement methods and pedagogy. The remaining parts of the sourcebook illustrate the product of the roots—healthy branches, fruits, and trees—modeling the various methods and approaches that are currently being applied by faculty to integrate community-engaged learning into their curriculum.
Part II Part II focuses on using and applying civic engagement. It provides a sampling of methods to institutionalize civic engagement across campus and approaches that various faculty members have adopted. In Chapter 12, Brandon Kliewer, Brandon Hollingshead, Jessica Rhea, and Courtney Dwyer Satkoski showcase how all stakeholders, faculty, staff, students, and community partners developed a framework for the foundations of a civic engagement course. The authors outline how they used the democratic engagement service-learning method in designing the curriculum that informed the undergraduate course that became a requirement for 10 of 24 majors at their regional state university. In Chapter 13, Darryl Mace, Nancy Watterson, and Nicholas Rademacher present the Voice of Justice (VoJ) Living and Learning Community approach used in preparing first-year students at their institution. The approach aims to foster personal values as they relate to social responsibility, justice, and civic action. The authors detail the practices and methods applied in engaging students to come with diverse perspectives and engage in critical dialogues while offering safe spaces to converse and think about theories, life experiences, and real-world problems. In Chapter 14, Ned Scott Laff and Joyce Fields outline a liberal arts approach they infused into sequentially required seminars for sophomores and juniors that challenge students at Columbia College to reflect on their purpose in life and how it fits with becoming civically engaged. In Chapter 15, James Mullooly and Steven Hart share Fresno State University’s approach and achievement in developing an interdisciplinary minor in urban civic education. They argue for housing service-learning within an academic discipline as a means of gaining validity and credibility while ensuring its success as a worthy pedagogy. These authors share the process they used in accomplishing these efforts to stand on solid ground.
Part III Part III, using and applying service-learning continues the theme of curricula infusion across all disciplines. It introduces us to authors who subscribe to using and applying service-learning. In Chapter 16, Marie Watkins, Collin Hayes, and Molly Sarubbi share and apply the six R’s collaborative service-learning pedagogy model to a First Year Seminar: Youth Engaged in Service course, which involved IHE students and K–12 students from the surrounding community. They outline how the six R’s of rigorous learning—relevant and responsive service, reciprocity, risk and reality assessment, reflection, and recognition and celebration—are applied and result in high-impact practices. In Chapter 17, Scott Crabill and Christopher Jensen share an interdisciplinary capstone course that positions students to (a) integrate knowledge and theory acquired
xl–•–Introduction
from their general education courses and individual majors, (b) apply it to an academic-service-learning experience, and then (c) describe it in the form of a research paper. The authors share how students’ multiple learning experiences (coursework, academic service-learning, and writing) situate them to critically explore societal issues and present possible solutions for change. Chapter 18 reflects the basis for service-learning to be part of the institutional culture. Margaret Sass discusses the need for institutions to develop and implement actionoriented service-learning policies. She then shares strategies and examples for implementing institutional organizational structures that support service-learning. In Chapter 19, Ann Marie Jursca Keffer shares the need for using intentional-designed models on relationshipbased service. She asserts that collaborations between partners should be reciprocal, as they are the key to quality service-learning, and shares how her institution has adopted relations-based service by illustrating these relationships in a cross-section of courses. In Chapter 20, Helen Rosenberg highlights a case study in the community-based learning model that involved IHE students, a community agency that provides vocational rehabilitation, and members of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Using this model, students interacted with individuals diagnosed with mental illness with the goals of deconstructing any stereotypes the students may have held. The author demonstrates how issues surrounding fear for populations that may be removed from students’ experiences may emerge during the implementation of servicelearning projects. Part III concludes with Chapter 21, where Karen Schwartz and Adje van de Sande share their approach to service-learning by involving students to engage in community-based participatory research (CBPR) with agencies. They address barriers encountered while adopting CBPR as a form of service-learning and civic engagement, including solutions for addressing them.
Part IV As you enter the world of using and applying communityengaged learning, you will find that the community residents and agencies within the neighborhood become equal partners that are critical to this pedagogy. They can make or break the process. To that end, Part IV focuses on recognizing the assets and strengths of communities. The authors of Chapters 22 through 27 emphasize the value of developing and nurturing authentic relationships that result in sustainable partnerships based on high-impact practices. In Chapter 22, Isabel Baca addresses practices in helping to find the right partners. She lists responsibilities for all partners—faculty, student, and community partners— that include agency mentorship roles that all should review and practice. When faculty members infuse these responsibilities into their practices, they become proactive and avoid any pitfalls that may typically occur. Baca,
like many authors in this sourcebook, supplies us with resources, including agency profile forms, agreements, contracts, and evaluations, that we can easily adopt and use within our institutions. On the topic of contracts, we offer a word of caution and recommend that you review these forms with your risk management office before official adoption. In Chapter 23, Crystal Aschenbrener brings invaluable experiences to this sourcebook as she writes from the perspective of her former role as director of a Habitat for Humanity affiliate and her current role as a faculty member engaged in using this pedagogy. She emphasizes the importance of developing purposeful, goal-oriented plans when engaging with the community and further presents benefits that communities and students will gain from partnerships. In Chapter 24, Julie Dierberger illustrates a model for creating successful partnerships. She uses the example of a grassroots initiative and involved multiple partners, including the local school district, community agencies, and the University of Nebraska Omaha. She shows how all partners used their assets in addressing a community need determined by the community. Another added value of this book is learning from authors from various geographic global regions, and this is best demonstrated in the next chapters. In Chapter 25, Janis Timm-Bottos and Rosemary Reilly share how an art studio in Montreal, Canada, was collaboratively created within a working-class community and resulted in a community space for open dialogue and safe acceptance for all partners. This chapter reflects how learning was situated and based in the community. Showing a community involved perspective in Chapter 26, Leela Viswanathan demonstrates the partnership between students in a professional planning graduate course in urban and regional planning, community residents, and faith-based organizations in a downtown Kingston community in Ontario, Canada. Viswanathan details the process applied in using community strengths, assets, culture, and demographics to implement a community service-learning project. The author demonstrates how community stakeholders were involved, from the preplanning phases of writing the syllabus to facilitating multiple sessions, orientations, and community tours with the students. The community helped to shape the learning experiences of the graduate students. As learning continues in the community, it is important that we consistently measure the effectiveness of community-based learning to determine its benefits, impacts, and outcomes. When considering outcomes, it is crucial to ask “outcomes for whom?” In Chapter 27, Elizabeth Tryon, Marian Slaughter, and J. Ashleigh Ross discuss the need for a paradigm shift to engaging in thorough, critical, and authentic evaluation of community impacts as previous evaluation models have been superficial and especially lack discussion of inherent issues, such as the power differentials between IHEs and the community members served. In an effort to address limitations in evaluation
Introduction–•–xli
models, Tryon, Slaughter, and Ross provide a synopsis of promising models to learn from in evaluating the impacts of community-based learning. In their review of literature, they explain the difference between outcomes and impacts. These provide a lens for IHEs and their community partners to take into consideration when assessing what works and for whom it works. Parts V through VIII focus on disciplinary approaches to the infusion of academic community-engaged learning and engagement pedagogy in the classroom. The chapters are illustrations of models that various faculty members across the country have used to infuse academic community-engaged learning into their courses.
Part V Part V, the business and management section, features three examples from faculty and student perspectives in business courses. In Chapter 28, Jason Senjem provides major myths that faculty members find hindering the integration of service-learning into curriculum. He responds to those myths with practical solutions, using immersive, student-directed, and research-based models that have been applied in organizational behavior, which is the foundation of management and sustainable business courses. Chapter 29 is an illustration of a four-year partnership that has involved a local community library, its librarian, a faculty member, and 29 accounting graduates in British Columbia, Canada. John Shepherd and Allan Wilson provide an account of the process of identifying and meeting community needs and collaborating with community partners. Their model is an illustration of community-based engagement with all stakeholders equally working together. Chapter 30 concludes the business and management section with a unique perspective that is integral to the learning process—the perspective of students. Diana Kolar presents a personal story of her experiences as a former business student who engaged in service-learning. Her experience may not represent the experiences of all students in IHEs, but it brings a refreshing perspective on how some students may feel. Her story provides insight for faculty, most especially those in business, into which aspects to consider. Her appeal is not meant to criticize a specific program but to illustrate how her experiences with community engagement have shaped her personal life and have been beneficial to her professional success.
Part VI Part VI, the humanities section, is a sampling of faculty in world languages as well as performing and visual arts. It begins with E. Nicole Meyer comprehensively showcasing the intersection of theory and practice in a French language service-learning course. In Chapter 31, Meyer details the preparation, action, and community engagement processes involved. She shares challenges, which I call developmental opportunities, for all of us to learn from.
Chapters 32 and 33 represent faculty from various geographic regions within the United States. They introduce us to community-based art by using drama as a tool for exploring societal issues and social change. In Chapter 32, Janna Goodwin and Amie Dowling teach a performing arts course that engages undergraduate students and incarcerated individuals on an equal level in a creative space to create original works of art in dance, theater, and music. The authors provide steps, from the yearlong program design, course development, assignments, exercises, and rehearsal methods to the assessment practices that were implemented for this service-learning and civic engagement program. In Chapter 33, Dana Aspinall creatively shows the parallels between medieval drama and service-learning. He explains how he taught an experimental service-learning drama course that involved first-year students and residents from an assisted-living facility—age 75 to 91—in acting. Aspinall shows how he integrated the PARE model (preparation, action, reflection, evaluation) into this course that created a collaborative setting for learning to occur between generations. It ultimately resulted in the performance of a play titled Everyman. In addition to these insights, as readers will uncover as they explore, this sourcebook illustrates disciplinary, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary efforts in community-engaged learning. Chapter 34 reflects a cross-disciplinary focus with music instruction intersecting with teacher education. Readers will observe that Lois Veenhoven Guderian emphasizes academic servicelearning and teacher education. Given this, it could be argued that that this chapter should be placed in social sciences with other teacher education programs using community-engaged learning. However, as students are applying their specialized knowledge and skills in music to teacher education—and as this field is housed in the music department at their institution—we decided to place this chapter in the humanities section. Chapter 34 presents how the music department has collaborated with community partners in developing academic service-learning programs to fulfill the needs of current teachers, preservice teachers, and K–12 students. The department accomplished this by engaging preservice teachers to use their knowledge and skills gained in creative writing and composing music by applying that knowledge through tutoring, coaching, and mentoring K–12 students. This chapter shows one of the many features of this pedagogy, the win-win emphasis of communityengaged learning when infused well. In Chapter 35, as Part VI comes to a close, Sophia Sukmun Law shares how a course in visual arts is used to engage college students and institutional residents with cognitive and physical disabilities to creatively communicate their thoughts and visualize their emotions using art. Law outlines the steps to get students prepared for going into the field and, subsequently, conducting surveys to illustrate the outcomes of applying their knowledge and skills.
xlii–•–Introduction
Part VII Part VII features chapters that focus on the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In Chapter 36, Kristin Riker-Coleman, Michelle Arnhold, Nicholas Danz, and Randy Gabrys-Alexson show a departmental approach to infusing civic engagement into their science courses. Faculty from the Department of Natural Sciences teaching biology, human biology and anatomy, and physiology courses utilize existing natural and environmental resources within their surrounding communities to address some regional environmental concerns while fulfilling community and student needs. The authors detail the processes of course transformation and community preparation, curricula infusion, and assessment methods. This chapter serves as a guide for science faculty attempting to get started in service-learning or to continue transforming their courses in this direction. In Chapter 37, Elias Mpofu, Martin Mackey, Syeda Zakia Hossain, Reinie Cordier, Michael Millington, and Sarah Wilkes-Gillan discuss the role of service-learning in the health sciences field. They assert that this pedagogy helps professionals in these health care fields (physiotherapy, disability studies, health psychology, speech pathology, behavior and community health, occupational therapy, rehabilitation and counseling) become more sensitive to the lived experiences of their clients based on professional engagement with them in the community. The authors highlight service-learning goals specific to various health sciences disciplines and illustrate the methods they have used in their courses. In Chapter 38, Carol Cokely, Linda Thibodeau, and Jackie Clark show how they have each applied servicelearning principles to their audiology curriculum at the University of Texas at Dallas where students work in the community with mentors, agencies, the clients and their families using their specialized knowledge, problemsolving, technology, assessment, and management skills. Each author shows us how partnerships were formed with community stakeholders within the United States and Mozambique in addressing and supporting real-life issues that pertain to individuals with hearing loss. This chapter features a timeline that could be adopted for implementing service-learning. In Chapter 39, Sheryl B. Cooper and Jody H. Cripps introduce us to multicultural service-learning, a pedagogy that connects a theoretical basis in multicultural education to the situations of marginalized and disenfranchised communities. They use this pedagogy to collaborate with the Deaf community and area agencies. The authors share how engaging in the community results in multiple gains for their students, but they also discuss challenges and provide recommendations that we could learn from. In Chapter 40, Michael Carriere draws in the reader as he uses a first-person writing style to describe how, on a
warm spring day in Milwaukee, he found himself ankle deep in soil working with first-year engineering students and a neighborhood agency to raise a community garden. He highlights the relationships between service-learning, the STEM disciplines, the liberal arts, social sciences, and technology. He then models students’ collaboration with community residents in the creation of community garden. Carriere outlines the curricula preparation and application— engaging students majoring in electrical, mechanical, architectural, and bimolecular engineering—to transition from learning to doing. In Chapter 41, Tim Krause discusses the roles technology might play in supporting faculty and students engaged in service-learning and shares online resources that assist with crucial aspects: project and time management, communication, time tracking and reporting, document management and sharing, and communication with community members. The resources provided in this chapter are applicable to all of us involved in work with other stakeholders. In Chapter 42, Ruth Cronje and Laurelyn Sandkamp model an undergraduate environmental civic engagement course that helps students problematize and reflect upon the epistemic status of scientific evidence and their role as technocrats in a community project that required the collaboration of citizens. The project resulted in a community public campaign that impacted nearly 60,000 residents.
Part VIII Part VIII showcases exemplary work done by colleagues in teacher education and sociology disciplines. The work engaged undergraduate and graduate students in the community. It also shares various approaches used in helping IHE students develop cultural competency skills in working with racially and culturally diverse students. It begins with Chapter 43, where Reid Richard Riggle and Nancy Mathias share the process of collaborating with the K–12 community in supporting their goals to close the opportunity gap. They share the Village Project model, an opportunity that places first-year preservice teachers in multiple tutoring and mentoring opportunities to serve as extra support for after-school program staff working with K–12 public school students. The authors detail elements of the model, such as gaining student buy-in, training students, then defining the roles and expectations for all partners. The practices shared by these authors are practical enough to be replicated in any academic program. In Chapter 44, Jonathan Dooley and Terry Burant share the experiences and perceptions of undergraduate preservice teachers regarding social justice issues as they engaged in service-learning in their first professional education course. The reflections shared are reminders for faculty about experiences some students may encounter as they interact with people perceived as different from them. As faculty members engage in using community-based
Introduction–•–xliii
learning, they need to develop, nurture, and sustain cordial relationships with other IHE partners that consistently work with various community agencies. In Chapter 45, Tynisha Meidl and Jennifer Garrett Nissen discuss the importance of developing quality relationships between academic and co-curricular partners. They model a partnership between a faculty member and a staff member in student affairs to provide a servicelearning opportunity for preservice teachers in Wisconsin to work with K–12 students and staff in New Orleans, Louisiana. This chapter is extremely important as it shares how emerging hierarchies in collaborative relationships could be dismantled or deconstructed. In Chapter 46, Mary Jane Eisenhauer shares a unique collaborative model between faculty, campus community service staff, and students to strengthen intracampus relationships and promote community engagement. The model uses a student mentoring program developed to meet preservice teachers’ needs for support and guidance while engaging in service-learning. In Chapter 47, Cassandra McKay-Jackson and Annette Johnson emphasize how critical service-learning helps to challenge issues dealing with oppression, privilege, and power differentials. They integrate this approach with theoretical frameworks in sociology. Then they outline the steps taken in implementing their critical service-learning project in engaging master’s level social work students to work with marginalized youths in promoting empowerment, social skills, and emotional development.
This can be termed international service-learning (Bringle, Hatcher, & Jones, 2012). In Chapter 48, Shenila Khoja-Moolji and Shirin Karsan discuss power relations that emerge in international community engagement opportunities, especially as projects may reproduce power differentials and unequal power relations between service providers from technologically developed countries (and/or supporters) and the recipients of such services in developing countries with fewer technological advancements. In Chapter 49, Antoinette Smith-Tolken and Jacob du Plessis offer a reflection model that is used in Stellenbosch University, South Africa, for engaging students who come from various countries to work with community organizations. They share how they adopted a reflection model to address language barriers, cultural differences, and communication issues that emerged. In Chapter 50, Marguerite W. Penick-Parks and Suzanne Fondrie share their work in a graduate education course that involved IHE faculty and students and K–12 students from smaller communities in Ghana, West Africa, and Wisconsin (U.S.). The authors share how they infused multicultural education, social justice, and international education curriculum in helping first graders in the United States deconstruct misconceptions, prejudices, and stereotypes of countries in the African continent. In Chapter 51, Lee Jerome compares the British tradition of active citizenship education with the U.S. tradition of service-learning and outlines some tensions and complexities about terminologies and application between the countries.
Part IX Part IX is titled “International Service-Learning, Comparative and International Perspectives.” This sourcebook reflects various exemplary works by colleagues pertaining to community engagement in Australia, Canada, Ghana, England, Hong Kong, Mozambique, South Africa, the United States, and countries in Latin America. We explored the question of whether to present separately the works done outside the United States but concluded that regardless of where the community engagement is situated, the theories used are the same. Yet, the community approaches used may be different given the social, political, cultural, and historical context of each country; thus, we decided to present these works based on similar themes. In our research, we also discovered—as implied in Chapter 6 and the works of Ann Marie Thomson, Antoinette Smith-Tolken, Anthony V. Naidoo, and Robert G. Bringle (2011)—that what some of us consider service-learning, civic engagement, or even community-based learning, may not be accurate terms for projects carried out in various countries. Chapters 48 through 51 present service-learning with partners in various countries as community engagement that intersects service-learning with international education.
Part X The curricula sections in this sourcebook end with Chapters 52 through 58 in Part X, which focuses on sustainability, lessons learned, and future directions. It is important to note that although we have a separate section for these topic areas, they are also woven into all aspects of the chapters as all authors have shared strategies they have used in sustaining their work with partners and have also made recommendations regarding best practices. In Chapter 52, Walter Cannon and Cheri Doane share a partnership model built on trust, communication, and shared needs as best practices in developing and nurturing relationships while sustaining partnerships with community partners based on their institution’s approach to using holistic listening. They outline multiple principles and best practices that they have used with all partners and share an exemplary course to illustrate the approach they adopted. In Chapter 53, Heather McRae presents a strong case for institutionalizing engagement but also shares that there is no singular best approach to institutionalizing engagement. She supports learning communities by sharing
xliv–•–Introduction
guidelines that could be adopted for use and providing frameworks for guiding the entire process to institutionalized engagement. In Chapter 54, Lois-Ann Kuntz and Meghan Wilson Duff provide guidelines for making service-learning and community engagement (SL/CE) sustainable within a department. Within these guidelines, they propose that departments build on existing structures, plan for transforming these structures based on collective voices, and be ready to adapt to internal and external influences. In addition to the need for sustaining SL/CE within departments, they share strategies for sustaining community partnerships. In Chapter 55, Carol Wickersham draws upon 20 years of experiences on both sides, as a community partner and then as a faculty member. She shares faculty and community perspectives of each other to guide us in developing collegiality among stakeholders that is mutually beneficial and respectful for all involved. In Chapter 56, Sarah Edwards and Nancy Edick caution us to explore the price of community engagement as they share the demands, challenges, and opportunities to service-learning and community engagement within their college of education program. As they reveal how they came to realize their program’s flaws and failures, their chapter is refreshing as it cautions readers to step back and reflect on what they could be doing better. In Chapter 57, Keith Robinder draws upon the experiences of community college students to illustrate lessons learned from engaging in service. The stories shared by students provide lessons for stakeholders about the efficacy of service-learning and civic engagement pedagogy. In Chapter 58, Lina Dostilio and Kate Molchan present risk management approaches commonly used in service-learning. They assert that these approaches are
critical to the effectiveness and sustainability of servicelearning programs; thus, they present us with a relational approach to co-constructed risk management that involves all stakeholders.
References
Klak, T., & Mullaney, E. G. (2013). Levels and networks in community partnerships. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research & Engagement, 6(1), 61–21. Steinberg, K. S., Bringle, R. G., & Williams, M. J. (2010). Service-learning research primer. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. Thomson, A., Smith-Tolken, A., Naidoo, A., & Bringle, R. G. (2011). Service-learning and community engagement: A comparison of three national contexts. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 214–237. doi:10.1007/s11266-010-9133-9 Welch, M. (2009). Moving from service-learning to civic engagement. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 174–195). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236–253. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Jones, S. G. (Eds.). (2012). International service-learning: Conceptual frameworks and research. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Delano-Oriaran, O. (2012). Infusing Umoja, an authentic and culturally engaging service-learning model, into multicultural education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 403–414. Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Closing Remarks The editing of this book has indeed been a learning process. I became reborn into community-engaged learning pedagogy as a scholarly field as I unlearned, relearned, and continue to learn about different types of effective community-engaged and community-based learning pedagogical methods. I hope that as you use this sourcebook, you will experience a critical learning process that inspires you to share the knowledge acquired from this publication and apply it into your practice to mentor future generations of leaders to become civically engaged. The collection of voices represented in this sourcebook is evidence of the diverse and rich work currently applied in various learning institutions. What is clear is the critical value of community partners and the need for partnerships that are based on mutual trust, reciprocity, and rewards. There is also still much work to be done in institutionalizing community-engaged learning. We hope that this sourcebook is used as a guide in supporting you or your institution in building or enhancing a climate of institutionalizing academic community-engaged learning. We strongly assert that our intent is not for this book to be used as a recipe, nor do we proclaim that it shows the only way for adopting this pedagogy. However, we do believe that it serves as a guide for quality infusion and engagement. It takes a village to engage. We are indeed part of that village. Omobolade Delano-Oriaran
SAGE was founded in 1965 by Sara Miller McCune to support the dissemination of usable knowledge by publishing innovative and high-quality research and teaching content. Today, we publish more than 750 journals, including those of more than 300 learned societies, more than 800 new books per year, and a growing range of library products including archives, data, case studies, reports, conference highlights, and video. SAGE remains majority-owned by our founder, and after Sara’s lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures our continued independence. Los Angeles | London | Washington DC | New Delhi | Singapore | Boston
PART I FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
1 DEVELOPING PRACTITIONER-SCHOLARS FOR THE FUTURE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MANDI R. MCREYNOLDS Drake University
A
s you read this sourcebook for faculty and servicelearning centers, I challenge you to move beyond being a reader and a practitioner. Your role as a scholar is vitally and equally important to this field. Will you consider embracing a larger vision of yourself as a practitioner-scholar? Will you shift from the consumption of knowledge and implementation of theory-based practices to the level of full engagement in the field through scholarship? Just as you challenge students, faculty, and community partners to take a leap into service-learning and civic education, I hope you also challenge yourselves in the area of scholarship. This chapter is written in a different format and style from some of the other chapters in this volume. As you read it, it is my hope you feel like we are sitting together at a conference with a cup of coffee and challenging each other to grow, stating, “Do not be a bystander practicing or reading pedagogical approaches. Be an informed reflective advocate in the field!” The nature of service-learning and civic education demands this democratic shift in the minds of its practitioners (Langseth & Plater, 2004; Saltmarch, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009). It calls us to engage in our work and approach it as holistic beings. We are practitioners of service-learning and civic education and scholars of the field. These are equal in our minds: interrelated and mutually beneficial. Regardless of your background, you can no longer stand on the sidelines and coach: You must step out onto the field and practice the execution of scholarship and contribution. As a valuable player in the field of scholarship, each individual is responsible to support the future of servicelearning and civic education. You could say, “Why would I
spend my time doing this?” or “Who me? I am not qualified” or “I am just thinking about service-learning and civic education.” Like the iconic American photograph of Uncle Sam, I point to you and say: “I want you!” Regardless of one’s role—from senior administrator to support staff, tenure track faculty member to community partner, or doctoral student to first-year undergraduate student—each has a remarkable wealth of contributions to offer the field (Felten & Clayton, 2011; Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccone, 2011; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009; Zlotkowski, Longo, & Williams, 2006). This chapter describes a practitioner-scholar, addresses barriers to becoming one, and provides resources to advance practitioner-scholar contributions. It is crafted based on my own practitioner-scholarship reflections. Resources include reflective questions and table guides. Each serves as a map to guide your personal journey toward becoming a practitioner-scholar in the field of service-learning and civic engagement.
What Is a Practitioner-Scholar? Charles McClintock (2004) defined the scholar-practitioner as “an ideal of professional excellence grounded in theory and research, informed by experimental knowledge, and motivated by personal values, political commitments, and ethical conduct” (p. 393). This professional model is used in teacher education (Wunder & Macintyre Latta, 2012), clinical psychology (Stoltenburg et al., 2000), nursing (Peterson & Jones, 2013), and management (Salipante & Aram, 2003). Practitioner-scholars have the unique ability 3
4–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
to perceive deficiencies in current theories and practices. Their research and best pedagogical knowledge are needed to challenge and drive the development of a stronger academy (Bringle & Hatcher, 2009; Ospina & Dodge, 2005). In this chapter, the term “practitioner-scholar” intentionally uses a hyphen not to describe two different individuals with distinct roles relating to one another in research and field practice. Instead the term is similar to the typology of service-learning (Sigmon, 1997), where practitionerscholar is designed to be one word describing the equal and mutually beneficial role of both professional responsibilities. Ascribing the concept of the practitioner-scholar to service-learning and civic education, we must examine the difference between the two and seek common ground on the continuum of practitioner versus scholarship. As illustrated in Table 1.1, the work of a scholar is dependent on the work of a practitioner. Conversely, the work of a practitioner is dependent on the work of the scholar. Although the output and focus of the work are distinctive, each is interrelated (Bartunek, 2007; Bushouse et al., 2011; Hughes, Bence, Grisoni, O’Regan, & Wornham, 2011). As you move to practitioner-scholar status, ask yourself where your work falls within these dimensions. When you begin your practitioner-scholar journey, reflect on the following questions: • What excites you the most in your practice of civic engagement and service-learning? Would others benefit from hearing of your practice? • What is a common problem you encounter in practicing service-learning and civic engagement? Is there value for others to know about this problem or of your success in developing a solution? • Are you noticing a gap between theory and practice? If so, why? How could it be resolved? • Do you have current assessments or reflections that could contribute to a larger body of knowledge on a topic area? • Do you have a resource or tool you have developed for your campus or community that could be of value to others?
Barriers and Solutions As with any journey, we look ahead and begin to map the course. In the world of academia, we are conditioned to think immediately of the perceived obstacles. On a road trip, we look ahead to construction and severe weather obstacles. As a practitioner-scholar, we do the same. It is reality that you have to cope with through your practitioner-scholar journey. It is important to address these real barriers, but to not let them paralyze you from becoming a practitioner-scholar. This chapter arose from a workshop for novice and veteran professionals on Becoming a Practitioner-Scholar at the Iowa Student Personnel Association Annual Conference in the fall of 2012. During the workshop, 20 attendees developed a list of perceived barriers to becoming a practitioner-scholar. Together, participants discussed solutions to how the field can overcome these barriers. The following list details the most common barriers and possible solutions for consideration culled from participants’ responses.
Barrier #1: When would I find the time to become a practitioner-scholar? Solution: You start small. The same barrier exists with students and semester-long assignments. Some wait until the night before and stay up all night to write a paper or prepare for a presentation. What, traditionally, is your advice to these students? “You have had all semester to do the assignment, so why didn’t you just do a little bit at a time?” Unfortunately, we fail to heed our own advice. We think we always need large chunks of time to prepare scholarship for a contribution to the field. It isn’t true. For example, over the past year, I consciously devoted smaller chunks of time for developing my scholarship. I calculated on sticky notes how long it took me to write each manuscript and prepare each presentation. I was amazed
Practitioner
Scholar
Apply theory-based concepts
Develop theory-based concepts
Generalist
Specialist
Dissemination of knowledge through informal environments with colleagues, students, networks, and community partners
Dissemination of knowledge through formal peerreviewed academic structures such as journals, white papers, conferences presentations, and books
Advances the professional practice
Advances forms of knowledge
Focused on short-term best practice results and assessment
Focused on long-term research results and analysis
Collaborative in nature
Singular in nature
Table 1.1
Practitioner-Scholar Comparison
1. Developing Practitioner-Scholars for the Future of Community Engagement–•–5
to find a presentation for a conference or training required four to eight hours of preparation, and preparing the manuscript for a journal, resource tool, or book chapter took around 15 to 20 hours, depending on the length and subject matter. At the end of the calendar year, I had completed two draft manuscripts, two chapters for a book, three conference presentations, and one training for the Iowa Department of Education. My total time devoted to scholarship as a practitioner was 75 hours. As you think about your own scholarship or contribution to the field, I challenge you to think about what is doable. Set a realistic goal for what you feel you can accomplish in this next calendar year. At the beginning of my practitioner-scholarship journey, I did not plan to be the major researcher in the field. My goal was to advance the field through case studies, trainings, and resource development. As you review your own professional goals and strengths, utilize Table 1.2 to
Type of Scholarship and Contribution to the Field
Barrier #2: My supervisor or dean does not support service-learning or civic education. Solution: Infuse and use the practitioner side of your work for scholarship and contribution to the field. What are you already doing that could be used to support the field? Could any of your pedagogical practices in a course, programs, annual reports, donor reports, assessments, grant applications, resource tools, or award applications be repurposed to generate new knowledge or advance current practices in service-learning and civic education?
Does my current work match this outlet? If so, what part?
Conference presentation Professional organization blog writer Information and news outlets Journal article Training or Workshop Literature review Digital media outlets Resource guide Website Book review Book chapter Online discussion Webinar Peer reviewer for conference proposals Peer reviewer for manuscripts Peer reviewer for grants or scholarships Other: Other: Table 1.2
determine what type of scholarship or contribution would work for you. You may have to explore options to build time into your schedule for your practitioner-scholarship agenda. It may require you to apply for a course release or a sabbatical, or to redefine your administrative job to include a percentage of time devoted for scholarship.
Contribution to the Field Concept Guide
What is my estimated amount of time to prepare this work of scholarship or contribution?
When in my schedule are small chunks of time I could devote to this scholarship or contribution?
6–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Barrier #3: I am not a/an (fill in the blank with good writer, excellent public speaker, etc.). Solution: Play to your strengths. Start at the point where you are passionate and embrace being able to grow in your competencies. My journey as a practitioner-scholar began with conference presentations and trainings. With a speech communication background, this was an easy transition for me to make; it did not take a lot of time or energy to prepare. However, after several trainings and presentations, individuals asked me where they could find my publications. I laughed and replied, listing all the barriers from this chapter such as finding the time, not having a scholarship network, or it not being my top priority. At one such conference, a practitioner-scholar in the field said to me, “If you don’t write, you are not helping your peers—you are only a resource to those who can attend a conference or training. As an advocate for civic engagement, social justice, and service-learning, I suggest you consider your responsibility to share your knowledge with everyone. You are a practitioner-scholar. Embrace being one and write.” So I did, taking a year off from presenting and focusing only on writing. My professional development time was spent developing my research and manuscripts. It was not easy. Some days, I just wanted to give up and go back to presenting. It took more energy and effort to write. I would see “writing block” on my calendar and cringe. I did not like the revision phase or being rejected by reviewers. Despite those feelings, I forced myself to take the time to diversify my scholarship, which made me a better supervisor, educator, service-learning coordinator, and overall grant writer. The personal and professional benefits paid off in the end. If you have been just writing or just presenting for a while, I encourage you to step forward. The moment is now to develop a new competency. If you are just beginning, step forward: Your journey starts today. The field of service-learning and
5 M Reflection Question Is it meaningful to my work as a practitioner at this time? Will this support me in developing a new competency or advance a current professional competency? Is it “missional”? Does it support my personal, professional, department, or intuitional mission statement? Is it manageable with my time and commitments? Is it momentous? Will it contribute to the advancement of the field and/or serve best practice for other practitioners? Is it memorable? Will this presentation, article or best practice be what you wished you shared with others? Table 1.3
5 M Reflection Guide
civic engagement is built on reflection as a cornerstone of experiential learning (Eyler, Giels, & Schmied, 1996; Howard, 2001). Practitioner-scholars should implement reflection throughout their scholarship development (Rice, 2010). The 5 M reflection guide in Table 1.3 can help determine if the scholarship you are considering is a good fit. If you answer, “yes” to four of the questions, then practitioner-scholarship is worth pursuing at this time.
Barrier #4: I was rejected for a conference presentation or journal article. Solution: Try again. Review any feedback provided. If feedback was given, then carefully consider it in order to strengthen your submission. If none is provided, then ask for feedback. One of my writing mentors shared with me that his first article was rejected eight times before it was published. As a seasoned scholar, he reminded me not to take rejection personally and to keep submitting. Make adjustments and seek another outlet for publication or presenting. Perhaps you simply needed to make a few adjustments—or perhaps it was just the wrong outlet for your content. Remember that audience, purpose, and fit are important for acceptance.
Barrier #5: Funding is not available for me to attend conferences or workshops to present. Solution: Begin in your own backyard and volunteer to share or submit your work. I have worked for institutions with limited funding for professional development. It does not have to be a barrier. My first practitioner-scholar contribution was developing a professional development experience for academic and student affairs members at my institution. After presenting at my institution, I was at the
Answer
1. Developing Practitioner-Scholars for the Future of Community Engagement–•–7
local association meeting for Leaders in Volunteers. The professional development committee was looking for speakers on various topics. I shared an abstract of my current research and presentation. They thought it was a good fit and invited me to present to their association. I drove less than five miles from my home and was able to share my scholarship with a respected group of practitioners interested in the topic. The next month, I received an email from another association who heard about my presentation from a colleague who attended the Leaders in Volunteers session. They paid for my mileage and travel expenses to present my research at their volunteer association meeting. None of these opportunities cost me or my institution. Take a risk and tell others about what you are doing. Remember, the news of your practitioner-scholarship can travel through others and open doors for other opportunities. Outside of your institution and local community, strive to invest in state or regional associations. I found working with local groups such as Iowa Campus Compact, Iowa Student Personnel Association, Iowa Commission on Volunteer Service, and local volunteer manager associations as some of the most rewarding and inexpensive outlets for sharing my scholarship. You can receive conference discounts, scholarships, or a waived conference fee if you are a keynote speaker, presenter, board member, or committee volunteer. Most opportunities to share your work can be within a short driving distance, or you could offer to host a conference or workshop at your institution. To build a national or international presence, consider submitting a proposal for a webinar or virtual conference. In addition, it could be an exceptional point in time to begin writing. With the Internet, phone, and a computer, these national and international outlets exist in your own backyard. Do not let the lack of funding discourage you from beginning your journey.
Barrier #6: I am the only one who does this kind of work at my institution. I have no one to network with about my scholarship or review my work. Solution: Create your own network. Early on in my career, I joined the Upper Midwest Campus Compact peer-coaching circle. It was the best low-cost professional development experience. Once a month, I joined a facilitated conference call with five peers from across the upper Midwest. Consulting fees and conferences can be expensive. The coaching circle allows you beneficial time to network and consult with colleagues in other regions. Together, you can map solutions and expand resources beyond just a conference session or a two-day consultant. The monthly calls allow you to dig deeper into various issues, go to your campus and try out solutions, and come back and assess the development a month later with peers.
After this experience, I started calling other practitioners in my area and asked if they would like to get together quarterly for coffee. Although it was not an official peer-coaching circle, it functioned like one. Better yet, the cost was only $5 for coffee. I broadened the vision for what a coaching circle could be through the informal construction of a practitioner-scholar circle. Today, I invite colleagues who know little about service-learning but who are experts in academic publishing to review and provide feedback on my writing. Because of their feedback, I obtained the skills needed to become a better academic writer. In addition, remember to consider the field of civic engagement and service-learning (already in your network). Students and community partners can serve as excellent coauthors, presenters, and coaching circle participants.
Barrier #7: Every time I try to do scholarship, I get interrupted by emails, meetings being scheduled, a student needing to meet, child care responsibilities, or (fill in the blank). It just is not my top priority. Solution: I can relate. I am a wife, mother, daughter, sister, volunteer, supervisor, student advisor, administrator, instructor, project manager, and fundraiser. I receive, on average, 100 to 150 emails each day. Interruptions are a fact of life and can be a real barrier. Today, I am writing this chapter at a coffee shop. I had planned to write at home in peace and quiet with no kids, no spouse, no work, and no emails. I was going to pull out my laptop, sit in my big comfy brown chair, and enjoy a fresh brewed cup of my favorite coffee. Unfortunately, my spouse’s basement construction project drastically changed my plans. As toxic fumes emanated from our basement, I had to relocate. A coffee shop is not my ideal environment. However, I had to adapt. As you schedule your chunks of time to devote to scholarship, use the time no matter what the environment. Whether at my office, in the passenger seat of a car, in the airport, or waiting for a meeting to start, I read background literature, write outlines, prepare presentations materials, free write, or review edits. Remember, any movement forward is movement forward. If you are waiting for the perfect time and place to start developing scholarship on service-learning and civic education, then you are going to wait for an eternity. Table 1.4 is designed to guide you through thinking about the environments you can work in and what could be accomplished in short amounts of time dedicated to your scholarship. Strive next week to map out four different time periods for your scholarship. Three time periods should be 15 to 20 minutes in length, and one time period should be 1 hour in length. Chart your course and begin to see your scholarship journey move forward.
8–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Day
Time
Goal: Free Writing, Outlining, Revising, Editing, Works Cited
Feelings J L
Location
Accomplishments
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Table 1.4
Scholarship Environments Reflection Guide
Barriers to PractitionerScholar Journey
Table 1.5
Solutions to PractitionerScholar Journey
Action Steps
Due Date
Completion Date
Action Plan
Action Plan You may have constructed a few ideas for possible contributions you could make to the field. You should also be aware of the possible barriers to the work and potential solutions. Use Table 1.5 to note each of your major barriers and potential solutions for your practitioner-scholar journey. Spend some time cultivating actions steps in a third column to help you move forward in your scholarship (i.e., set up a meeting with supervisor, join networking association, block writing time on calendar, etc.). In the references and further readings section, I have recommended a few readings I felt were helpful to me when I began my journey and may help you develop your action plan. Each allowed
me to reflect on my current practice and prepared me for how to cultivate practitioner-scholarship in my teaching and administrative work.
Conclusion Your journey as a practitioner-scholar begins today. Each of us has a responsibility to advance the field of servicelearning and civic engagement. The field’s future can only begin to move forward with a centralized model of professionals infusing their practice with scholarship, so that their scholarship benefits their practice and their practice benefits from their scholarship.
1. Developing Practitioner-Scholars for the Future of Community Engagement–•–9
References and Further Readings Bartunek, J. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1323–1333. Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bishop-Clark, C., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2012). Engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A guide to the process, and how to develop a project from start to finish. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2009). Innovative practices in service-learning and curricular engagement. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 37–46. Bushouse, B. K., Jacobson, W. S., Lambright, K. T., Llorens, J. J., Morse, R. S., & Poocharoen, O. (2011). Crossing the divide: Building bridges between public administration practitioners and scholars. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21(suppl 1), 99–112. Eyler, J., Giles D., & Schmiede, A. (1996). A pracitioner’s guide to reflection in service-learning. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Felten, P., & Clayton, P. H. (2011). Service-learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 128, 75–84. Howard, J. (2001). Principles of good practice in community service-learning pedagogy. In Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning: Service-Learning Course Design Workbook (pp. 16–19). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan OCSL Press. Hughes, T., Bence, D., Grisoni, L., O’Regan, N., & Wornham, D. (2011). Scholarship that matters: Academic–practitioner engagement in business and management Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 40–57. Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Langseth, M., & Plater, W. M. (Eds.). (2004). Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service-learning. Boston, MA: Anker Press.
McClintock, C. (2004). The scholar-practitioner model. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. J. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 393–396). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ospina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). Narrative inquiry and the search for connectedness: Practioners and academics developing public administration scholarship. Narrative Inquiry and the Search for Connectedness, 65(4), 409–423. Peterson, K., & Jones, S. (2013). Integrating the scholarship of practice into the nursing academician portfolio. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 3(11), 84–92. Rice, K. (2010). Becoming a reflective community servicelearning professional. In P. Jacoby & P. Clayton (Eds.), Looking in reaching out: A reflective guide for community service-learning professionals (pp. 1–16). Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Salipante, P., & Aram, J. D. (2003). The nature of practitionerscholar research in the nonprofit sector. NonProfit Mangagement & Leadership, 14(2), 129–150. Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. (2009). Democratic engagement white paper. Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education. Schön, D. A. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sigmon, R. L. (1997). Linking service with learning in liberal arts education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED446685.pdf Stoecker, R. & Tryon, E. (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service-learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Stoltenberg, C. D., Pace, T. M., Kashubeck-West, S., Biever, J. L., Patterson, T., & Welch, I. D. (2000). Training models in counseling psychology scientist-practitioner versus practitioner-scholar. The Counseling Psychologist, 28(5), 622–640. Wunder, S. A., & Macintyre Latta, M. (2012). Placing practitioner knowledge at the center of teacher education: Rethinking the policies and practices of the education doctorate. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Zlotkowski, E., Longo, N. V., & Williams, J. R. (Eds.). (2006). Students as colleagues: Expanding the circle of servicelearning leadership. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
2 A THEORY OF PRACTICAL BEAUTY FOR SERVICE-LEARNING AND PUBLIC-ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP MARIE G. SANDY University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee
A
n emerging theory of practical beauty can help frame the learning goals of service-learning for practitioners, students, and public-engaged scholars. It can also help orient the practices of those involved with community-academic partnerships to further goals of social justice. Based on a turn toward Aristotelian practical wisdom, the idea of practical beauty provides an epistemological framework that celebrates learning by doing for the common good. Incorporating Aristotelian philosophy in public-engaged scholarship is appealing because it highlights the knowledge we use in everyday life to make decisions and work collaboratively with others, and it distinguishes this form of knowledge from scientific and theoretical knowledge traditionally valued by the academy. This chapter outlines and critiques some of the theoretical developments in the service-learning field, and it describes some implications for considering humanist philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer’s perspective on practical beauty when developing and assessing service-learning programs, and cultivating community-academic partnerships.
A Move Toward Understanding Knowledge as Conversation The frameworks with which we think have a direct impact on what we do and how we do it. The primary framework used in the service-learning field has been American pragmatism, but scholars in the field acknowledge we may need to consider other traditions that
embrace more reciprocal approaches to knowledge. Benson, Harkavy, and Puckett (2007) charged that it may be time to go “beyond” John Dewey’s pragmatism to achieve social justice through public-engaged scholarship. Liu (1999) emphasized we must develop a deeper understanding of the underlying epistemology of our work for it to be legitimized in the academy. Rosaen, Foster-Fishman, and Fear (2001) wrote that the critical next step to deepen scholarship that genuinely extends itself to communities is to create a “systemic notion of discourse and practice that is shared by the university, community and civic institutions” (p. 10). Eugene Rice (2003) also demanded a more egalitarian epistemology that emphasizes shared expertise and multidirectional teaching and learning. Calls for a theory of service-learning and community engagement first occurred a few decades after the practice of service-learning became established (e.g., Giles & Eyler, 1994). Scholars sought to identify an appropriate philosophical base to legitimize the field with academic colleagues, orient research agendas, and improve pedagogy. They looked primarily to American pragmatism. Of the few articles available on the philosophy of servicelearning, nearly all focus on Dewey’s pragmatic theories of learning and action (Varlotta, 1997), although there are some who advocate for expanding our understanding of our theoretical founders, such as Jane Addams (Daynes & Longo, 2004), the Black civil rights movement (Stevens, 2003), and Doris Day of the Catholic Layworkers Movement (Morton & Saltmarsh, 1997). 11
12–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Recently, there has been increased attention to the possibilities for an Aristotelian approach to theory-building for the field. Lee Schulman (2004) described how Aristotle’s tradition of practical wisdom can help heal the divide between the liberal arts and the professions by promoting its application through service-learning and publicengaged scholarship. Sullivan and Rosin (2008) recommended we make practical reason or practical wisdom the new central epistemological paradigm for higher education by fully integrating public-engaged scholarship. This author suggests that Gadamer’s interpretation of practical philosophy (1976/1993), which includes practical wisdom or phronesis at its core, might be helpful to orient this new direction in the field. Gadamer’s philosophy places a unique emphasis on respecting others and cultivating knowledge through conversation, and it may help us get closer to actualizing what Liu (1999) referred to as the “marginal epistemology” of public-engaged scholarship where knowledge is understood as a function of conversation. It might also provide a corrective to some of the shortcomings found in pragmatic-oriented practice.
A Critical-Friendly Reflection on Pragmatism The contributions of pragmatism have been essential for inspiring our movement and developing its foundations, but ongoing weaknesses and inconsistencies in practice may originate from these philosophical roots (Butin, 2005). The pragmatist tradition emphasizes democratic ideals coupled with expert leadership and scientific research to enable society to gain mastery over the environment (Menand, 1997). In the field of service-learning and public-engaged scholarship, this has led to the promotion of expert knowledge at the expense of the knowledge of others (Sandy, 2011) and, subsequently, to the development of unequal partnerships, where academic partners design and generate knowledge and service, and community partners function largely as beneficiaries (e.g., Kahne & Westheimer, 1996; Rice, 2003). Pragmatism’s reliance on the “value-neutral” scientific paradigm may lead to problematic ends in practice, and it might also make it more difficult for scholars from other traditions, such as the liberal arts, to consider participating in the scholarship of engagement (Sandy, 2013).
Understanding Phronesis or Practical Wisdom Distinguishing Two Forms of Knowing Aristotle described phronesis in Nicomachean Ethics as a form of knowledge involved with the art or craft of human affairs at both at the individual level and collective levels. There are still traces of this largely forgotten form of knowing in our everyday language—we sometimes
hear about the “art” of living a good life or the “art of diplomacy,” for example. Gadamer contrasts phronesis with the mode of knowing that Aristotle described as techne. Techne is the virtue of thinking that encompasses the theoretical knowledge about the “constants” of the universe, including the hard sciences such as mathematics and physics. This form of knowledge can be taught, learned, and replicated, and it may involve sets of rules or techniques that are motivated by the utility of the object that they will produce. Therefore, the technical knowledge and expertise of techne is the domain of the few who have been trained or credentialed in a particular craft or domain. The scientific method is built on the virtue of techne, and techne, devoted to “things that are timeless and unchanging,” is the form of knowledge on which the sciences and the modern academic paradigm are based. But humans are not timeless and unchanging objects. We are subjects with free will. Therefore, the knowledge involved with how to conduct individual and collective human life requires a different epistemological foundation and virtue, phronesis. Phronesis involves free choice, personal reflection, and deliberation at all levels. It cannot be taught in the same way that the skills of techne can, but must be practiced by each individual with regard to their current situation. Therefore, the teaching and learning context for phronesis always requires a specific concrete situation in which to practice for both the learner and the teacher. In this way, practical beauty “oscillates between a theoretical and practical meaning” (Gadamer, 1976/1993, p. 114), and occurs by participating directly in experiences in the world. At the individual level, phronesis helps an individual make informed decisions by considering their actions in light of their impact on others. There is no one who can act well for us since we are each obliged to do what our head and heart say is right. The collective or political form of phronesis takes place when people work together to make choices for a community or society as a whole. An important characteristic of the collective form is that conclusions must be reached jointly by participating in conversations.
Gadamer’s Interpretation of Practical Wisdom Gadamer understood that we develop practical reason through participating with others in multiple situations throughout our lifetimes. He emphasized also that since we are all equally responsible for exercising phronesis in our lives (at both the individual and collective levels), there are no “phronesis experts.” Gadamer described how our reliance on experts weakens the ability of individuals to exercise their capacities for judgment and participation in deliberation for action. The problem, according to Gadamer, is not that technical, expert knowledge is bad; it is just that we have come to rely too much on this form of knowing in social settings. Gadamer advised that putting theory before practice can lead to arrogance, and abstract learning is insufficient for cultivating phronesis because it can desensitize us from
2. A Theory of Practical Beauty for Service-Learning and Public-Engaged Scholarship–•–13
being able to respond to the challenge of situations when we are in them. Therefore, he advocated for the kind of education that occurs outside or alongside the classroom and within the lived patterns of social life to gain experience in phronesis. A person seeking to cultivate phronesis could learn from many people who have cultivated wisdom in their own lives and communities. Deliberation, including one’s individual reflections and reflections in collaboration with others, completes this learning circle.
Phronesis as Practical Beauty Gadamer’s treatment of phronesis emphasizes the openness of conversation, ongoing participation that may lead to friendship, and working toward the common good. These talents are aesthetic, in the Gadamerian sense, because they involve “the art of thinking beautifully” (Gadamer, 1977/1986, p. 17) and cannot solely be understood in conceptual terms. These talents involve playfulness, a sense of humor, responsiveness, and the
capacity for improvisation, self-understanding, and participation in experiences of community. Referring to phronesis as “practical beauty” conveys something about Gadamer’s particular treatment of phronesis for “the beautiful ethical life” (1977/1986, p. 14). He emphasized that “the beautiful” always accompanies the process of taking care of necessities and that human society itself is human because there is beauty. Gadamer defines beauty as an excess of what is absolutely necessary. Friendships are beautiful because they are always more than just a useful transaction between individuals, for example. If we strive for “excess” of what is necessary in our practical life with others, then we might become more adept at remaining open to what the situation requires. The personal and civic arts of phronesis, when practiced well, can be beautiful, and aspiring for an excess of what is absolutely necessary in our community-academic partnerships, research, and service-learning may be more functional in the long run. Table 2.1 outlines some of the distinctions
Epistemology of Techne
Epistemology of Phronesis
Theoretical Knowledge: Deals with “things that cannot be other than they are,” including mathematics, physics and the natural world, and theology.
Practical-Political Knowledge: Deals with individual human life and human society, which can always change because we have free will and can make choices.
Knowledge can be taught and memorized as objective facts.
Knowledge cannot be directly taught but must be experienced in practice.
Applied knowledge is directed toward an object and can be replicated through following a set of rules, techniques, and methods. Familiarity with scientific method is helpful.
Applied knowledge is about living (praxis). It is unique to each situation and depends on the experience of the person applying it. Familiarity with “wise” people and exemplary practices is helpful.
Techniques are motivated by the utility of the objects they will produce.
Orientation is motivated by an understanding of what is “good.”
Process of knowing: scientific method of rules and procedures.
Process of knowing: reflection, conversation, and deliberation with others.
Subsets
Subsets
Academic subjects
Skills and technology
Individual life (how to live life well; making good choices)
Political collective (Deliberation to consider how to live together in a “beautiful” society—political science)
Specialized knowledge is the domain of experts in a particular field of inquiry.
Knowledge is the responsibility for everyone because everyone is in the position to act in the world.
Goal of knowledge is to master, control, or dominate.
Goal of knowledge is to participate and to choose well.
Can be considered the dominant paradigm for knowledge in higher education.
May be considered the dominant paradigm for knowledge for public-engaged scholarship.
Table 2.1
Humanistic Tradition of Two Epistemologies and Their Virtues
SOURCE: Based on information in Gadamer, H.-G. (1993). Hermeneutics as practical philosophy. In H.-G. Gadamer (Ed.) & F. Lawrence (Trans.), Reason in the age of science (pp. 88–112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1976)
14–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
described in Book VI of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and essays in Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Reason in the Age of Science. Both types of knowledge are necessary.
The Case of Phronesis in Service-Learning and in Higher Education Schulman (2004) and Sullivan and Rosin (2008) identified ways to cultivate practical reasoning or phronesis through public-engaged scholarship, particularly through its emphasis on professional judgment. They emphasized that practical reasoning involves a narrative form of thinking, rather than analytical or technical thinking, and that both ways of knowing are needed. The practice of servicelearning itself is a way to actualize the goals of practical reasoning through narrative encounters with others. In the classroom or learning environment, this often involves reflecting on student experiences as cases, or other case studies. Schulman (2004, p. 414) wrote, “You must work from the bottom up from cases to principles rather than trying to guide knowledge application from the top down.” He recommended service-learning students write cases about their experiences, and then reflect on those cases with others to consider the “good” or moral ends of education. This will help cultivate practical reasoning to future use “not simply to apply what he or she has learned to practice, but to transform, . . . to move from the theoretical knowledge of the academy to the kin of practical clinical knowledge needed to engage in the professional work” (Schulman, 2004, p. 553). Sullivan and Rosin (2008) offered examples of how teaching and research collaborations among the liberal arts and natural and social science professions provided rich learning opportunities for students and faculty to nurture practical reasoning. Through the use of transdisciplinary seminars, these authors found the common ground of various departments were their pedagogical goals and practices. They (a) outlined conversations about case studies to provide a bridge between concepts and experience; (b) described reflections on the historical context, and “tolerance for ambiguity in the application of concepts and principles” (2008, p. 93); and (c) encouraged students to cultivate the habit of responsible, reflective judgment in response to complex situations. This chapter describes some additional possibilities for the role of practical reasoning—or practical beauty—for service-learning public-engaged scholarship.
Implications for Designing Service-Learning Programs Honoring Co-Educators in Community Phronesis values our participation in the traditions of which we and others are a part, and therefore this form of
knowing lends itself to supporting a multicultural curriculum to understand diverse ways of living and learning while honoring the boundaries of our experiences. Partners and “clients” in community-based organizations might be more likely to be recognized as co-educators within this framework because experience, rather than credentialed expertise, is most highly valued. By developing an appreciation for individual and collective phronesis as an educational framework, academic partners might become more cautious when considering taking on the role of experts in communities—and classrooms—and consider whether their approach might weaken those they hope to serve.
Integrating “Charitable” and “Political” Service-Learning Placements Gadamer proposed that nearly all human actions are political because they impact others and we act with some intention: “We are political to the extent that we recognize that our actions are always purposeful” (Gadamer, 2000/2004, p. 43). Drawing on phronesis that guides both personal and collective actions, the political work of service-learning, as perceived through the lens of phronesis, can be understood as occurring anytime two people engaged in the work of the world connect, whether that is in a soup kitchen peeling potatoes, facilitating a deliberative public forum, or joining a political campaign. This perspective would therefore support providing opportunities to cultivate authentic relationships by including a range of “charitable” and “politicized” activities in service-learning programs in ways that are rarely combined (Mitchell, 2008). Integrating conversations with students grappling with the challenges of charitable relationships with the types of interactions that occur in partisan political settings could yield rich insights into the nature of the spaces between ethics and politics. Our challenge as educators and engaged scholars may be to tease out connections between the personal and the political, and to interrogate whether our actions serve goals for social justice or simply reify existing inequalities.
Integrating Self-Efficacy, Citizenship, and Subject Matter Learning Goals Because phronesis includes both personal as well as collective aspirations for living a good life, this epistemology could lend legitimacy to programs that combine selfefficacy and citizenship learning goals, which are sometimes a hard sell as “academically rigorous” enough for higher education. When the author directed a civicand community-learning immersion program, for example, she was sometimes confronted with the question, “But is that what they should be learning in college?” when describing some of our learning goals for self-efficacy and participation in the public sphere. The citizenship
2. A Theory of Practical Beauty for Service-Learning and Public-Engaged Scholarship–•–15
goals were usually easier to communicate, but it was a struggle to answer why our students should learn to live on a budget similar to the low-income people living in the neighborhood, what that has to do with citizenship, and why we might want to draw on experienced community partners to teach those aspects of our program. The epistemology of phronesis can provide a framework to answer these questions.
Implications for Public-Engaged Scholarship Nurturing Partnership Relationships In defining community-academic partnerships as a civic art or practical beauty, we become intentional about the give and take of relationships, knowing they are the true foundation of our creative work together. Regularly scheduled events with new and long-term partners, as our community partners have requested (Sandy & Holland, 2006), may become increasingly common with greater attention to Gadamer’s interpretation of phronesis. This approach might naturally lead to opportunities for all partners to learn about the life-worlds of each other, including frank discussions about differences in institutional power, values, and differences related to race, class, and gender to support collaborative practices.
Designing Community-Based Research For Dewey, the goal of implementing the scientific method is to encourage “curiosity, flexibility and patient search” (1910/1985, p. 396) to ensure we gain mastery over “things” rather than things having mastery over us. Gadamer too, described the need for curiosity and openness, but in keeping with the humanist tradition of phronesis, Gadamer (1960/1975, p. 278) said that in the interests of “service to what is considered valid,” one can help solve a problem of another only if one is a friend, if one is willing to put oneself in the problematic situation. From this perspective, the primary goal of scholarship in the humanities and social sciences is our participation in an aspect of human practice, to learn with others rather than simply attempting to control outcomes or gain mastery over adverse conditions. This could help pre-empt the practices of developing predetermined research projects on community rather than for community, and there are too many examples of this today.
References and Further Readings Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2007). Dewey’s dream: Universities and democracies in an age of education reform. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Butin, D. (2005). Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halualani (2007, p. 1) quoted a Native American Tongan community member to make this point: The team that I spoke to, their whole thing was they had very specific ideas about what they wanted to do with us, like they planned it all out before. Can you believe that? As if they know what’s happening in our community more than us. It wasn’t going to happen.
Community partners are more likely to be involved with the design of the project and the dissemination of findings from this perspective. As friends and conversation partners, it is also more likely that connections with communities will be sustained over time.
Conclusion Whether one refers to practical wisdom, practical beauty, or phronesis, this concept emphasizes particular refrains for the service-learning and public-engaged scholarship movement that the more scientific-oriented pragmatic paradigm does not. Work on identifying ways to apply the concept of practical wisdom or phronesis for publicengaged scholarship is ongoing (e.g., Sandy, 2011; Sullivan & Rosin, 2008). Developing a case study approach for service-learning reflection, acknowledging the positive possibilities of ambiguity, and working explicitly to cultivate the habit of reflective judgment have been hallmarks of its application. The author suggests that placing this concept within the context of a philosophical tradition such as Gadamer’s work holds additional possibilities for enlivening the field. Recognizing the individual and collective nature of phronesis as an epistemological foundation can provide a more accurate justification for integrating knowing, learning, and doing in service-learning, and orienting our practice to phronesis has the potential to alter how we collectively design partnerships. Gadamer’s interpretation of this concept has the potential to transform our understanding of how our work can become more beautiful by attending to the place for conversation, participation, and the role of the common good in our work, and it can help reimagine which types of service-learning placements and partnerships we consider appropriate. But most importantly, this approach ensures that relationships come to the fore. In this way, we can work toward “redirecting our attention to the structure of responsible action itself ” (Sullivan & Rosin, 2008, p. 129).
Daynes, G., & Longo, N. (2004). Jane Addams and the origins of service-learning practice in the United States. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 5–13. Dewey, J. (1985). Science as subject matter and as method. Science and Education, 4, 391–398. (Original work published 1910) Gadamer, H-G. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed.). Sheed and Ward, Ltd. (Trans.). New York, NY: Crossroad. (Original work published 1960)
16–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Gadamer, H.-G. (1986). The relevance of the beautiful and other essays, R. Bernasconi (Ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1977) Gadamer, H.-G. (1993). Hermeneutics as practical philosophy. In H.-G. Gadamer (Ed.) & F. Lawrence (Trans.), Reason in the age of science (pp. 88–112). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1976) Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). A century of philosophy. R. Coltman (Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum International. (Original work published 2000) Giles, D., & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of servicelearning in John Dewey: Toward a theory of servicelearning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 1, 77–85. Halualani, R. (2007, February). Working with diverse communities in community-based research. Paper presented at the Second Annual California State University Conference on Community Based Teaching and Research, San Jose, CA. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of what? The politics of service learning. Phi Delta Kappan, May, 593–599. Lisman, C., & Harvey, I. (Eds.). (1999). Beyond the tower: Concepts and models for service-learning in philosophy. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Liu, G. (1999). Knowledge, foundations, and discourse: Philosophical support for service-learning. In C. Lisman & I. Harvey (Eds.), Beyond the tower: Concepts and models for service-learning in philosophy (pp. 11–33). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Menand, L. (1997). Introductory essay. In L. Menand (Ed.), Pragmatism: A reader. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14, 50–65.
Morton, K., & Saltmarsh, J. (1997). Addams, Day and Dewey: The emergence of community service in American culture. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 137–149. Rice, R. E. (2003). Rethinking scholarship and engagement: The struggle for new meanings. Campus Compact Reader: Service Learning and Civic Education, 2, 1–9. Rosaen, C., Foster-Fishman, P., & Fear, F. (2001). The citizen scholar: Joining voices and values in the engagement interface. Metropolitan Universities, 12, 10–29. Sandy, M. (2011). Practical beauty and the legacy of pragmatism: Generating theory for community-engaged scholarship. Interchange, 42(3), 261–285. Sandy, M. (2013). Tracing the liberal arts traditions in support of service-learning and public engaged scholarship in the humanities. Humanity and Society, 37(4), 306–326. Sandy, M., & Holland, B. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives in campuscommunity partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13, 30–43. Schulman, L. (2004). Wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, learning to teach. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement for Teaching. Stevens, C. (2003). Unrecognized roots of service-learning in African American social thought and action, 1890–1930. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 25–34. Sullivan, W., & Rosin, M. (2008). A new agenda for higher education: Shaping a life of the mind for practice. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement for Teaching. Varlotta, L. (1997). Confronting consensus: Investigating the philosophies that have informed service-learning’s communities. Educational Theory, 47, 453–476.
3 VIRTUE ETHICS Foundation for Civic Engagement and Service-Learning RODMON KING Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Actions, then, are called just and temperate when they are such as the just or temperate man would do; but it is not the action but the man who does these that is just and temperate, but the man who also does them as just and temperate men do them. It is well said, then, that it is by doing just acts that the just man is produced, and by doing temperate acts the temperate man. Aristotle
T
his chapter provides a case for virtue ethics as a moral and philosophical foundation for servicelearning and civic engagement. First, I present an overview of normative virtue ethics. Next, I argue that virtue ethics is superior to other normative ethical theories that focus on either producing the best state of affairs (i.e., consequentialism) or moral rules and duties (i.e., deontology). Having provided this background, I then move on to examining the ways in which virtue ethics can be utilized to further service-learning and civic engagement initiatives. Specifically, I show the moral education process in virtue ethics fosters value exploration and the development of a civic consciousness. Last, the chapter features in-class exercises where the moral education process in virtue ethics can be used in service-learning classrooms.
Background and Literature Review Ethics, or moral philosophy as it is sometimes called, involves systematizing, critically analyzing, and defending right and wrong behavior or what we should or should not do. Ethics is traditionally divided into three branches: (1) normative ethics, which focuses on the establishment of rules of conduct, norms, and/or criteria for right or wrong action; (2) meta-ethics, which focuses on the semantics and semiotics of moral language; and (3) applied ethics, which focuses on the application of normative ethics theories to practical areas (e.g., environmental ethics, engineering ethics, and biomedical ethics). Because the focus of this chapter is to argue for an ethical foundation for service-learning, I place emphasis on normative ethical theories, specifically virtue ethics. One major thread of writing and theorizing in normative ethics has been centrally concerned with addressing questions such as “What should I do?” or “How should I act?” or “What ends or consequences should I bring about?” While these questions have merit, it would be naïve and mistaken to believe they comprise the entirety of normative moral discourse. An alternative set of questions also is morally relevant. Instead of focusing on how people should act, these questions ask, “What kind of person should I be?” or “What kind of character should I have?” They capture the heart of an ethical theory called virtue ethics. This ethical theory is rooted in the work of Ancient Greek philosophers, most notably Aristotle. Virtue ethics is centrally concerned with the development of our character. By “character” it is meant the 17
18–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
lasting attitudes and beliefs that shape how “a person sees, acts, and indeed lives” (Sherman, 1989, p. 1). They form the conceptual framework with which individuals view and interact with the world. By examining our character (and its foundation), we can cast light on the feelings and motivational attitudes from which our actions arise. Moreover, the traits and attitudes that form a person’s character will explain why and how that person can be counted on to act in certain situations (Sherman, 1989, p. 1). Our emotional reactions to perceived (or real) injustice are good initial indicators of our character (Robinson, 1995, p. 54). Over the last few years, videos have surfaced of individuals attacking people, purportedly as part of a “knockout game.” The point of this “game” is to knock out unsuspecting people while being recorded. Many individuals reacted to these videos with outrage. Reactions like this are windows into our character. The outrage we feel at perceived injustices such as this is based on a number of beliefs and judgments. We condemn the act itself. Also, we pass judgment on the perpetrators by questioning their judgment and character. Moreover, we may feel sympathy for the victim in these circumstances. These reactions arise from beliefs and attitudes that have been taught to us by many sources including our families, our communities, our environment, and institutions such as school and church (Robinson, 1995, p. 58). Our upbringing plays a vital role in our moral development since it shapes our conceptual framework (i.e., the background beliefs and mores that influence ways in which we view and judge situations, actions, individuals, and institutions). Through punishment, reward, and other social forms of approbation and condemnation, these influences promote certain types of actions and attitudes. The end result of this is that our emotions are trained in such a way that we have a tendency to experience certain feelings and attitudes when confronted with particular situations. This tendency is the heart of the virtues. However, it would be a mistake to believe that virtues consist of nothing more than the tendency to experience certain feelings and attitudes. In the “knockout game” example, individuals expressed very different reactions to the victims. Some people expressed sympathy, others were hardhearted, and still others were sarcastic. Some of these reactions are appropriate and others are not appropriate, but how do we differentiate between them? Answering this question is crucial to understanding virtues and distinguishing them from other (negative) states that we will call excesses or vices. More than a mere tendency to perform certain acts, each virtue is an excellence or ideal that actualizes our potential as human beings and enables us to pursue a morally good life. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful critical reflection on the values, attitudes, emotions, and actions that promote human flourishing. Each virtue is a fixed character trait seated deeply within its possessor. To have acquired a virtue is to have internalized a complex psychological state that takes into consideration actions, emotions, choices, values, desires, perceptions, attitudes,
interests, and so on. In other words, the virtuous person has robust capacity for situational perception (i.e., the ability to grasp all the moral contours or aspects of a situation). For example, the generous person is one who fully recognizes all of the particular moral factors with respect to a particular situation and the individuals involved. Consequently, he or she performs the proper generous action(s) that flow from his or her character. Patience, generosity, fairness, munificence, justice, compassion, courage, modesty, and temperance are examples of virtues. If we follow Aristotle’s account in the Nicomachean Ethics, then we can think of these virtues (and other virtues) as the intermediate between two extremes relative to us (Nicomachean Ethics 1105b24–6). One extreme is a deficiency of some excellence and the other an excess of some excellence. For example, generosity is the intermediate between stinginess (a deficiency) and spendthriftiness (an excess). We should not think that virtues are geometric or accretive in nature. The intermediate is not a geometric midpoint between two end points (one an excess and the other a deficiency), nor is it the numerical average. In some circumstances, the intermediate level of emotion may be more than or less than the midpoint or average amount. Consequently, we can now understand what is meant by “relative to us.” The virtuous person, based on his or her grasp of the morally relevant features of the situation, will grasp the intermediate with respect to the situation and have the right motivations and emotions to the right degree. This highlights the role of proper emotions and motivations in virtue ethics. As Aristotle points out in the Nicomachean Ethics, it is the motivations of the actor (or agent) that are most important. Acts by themselves are not virtuous, but they become virtuous when performed by the virtuous individual. For example, if a putative generous act such as the donation of time, effort, and/or money is done merely so agents can feel better about some injustice they have committed, or because the agents believes it will lead to social recognition, or because it is a rote expectation, etc., then the act would not be considered generous. Rather, the generous person is not merely a person who consistently performs putative generous acts. The generous person, on the other hand, performs a putative generous act because failing to do so would tend toward one or another excess. The key difference here is that the reasons and decisions of the generous person stem directly from his or her deep-seated attitudes and emotions regarding the nature of generosity and generous acts. Now, the question that naturally arises is how can an individual identify and develop these (and other) virtues? The answer is moral education. Virtues are acquired through both action and reflection. Unpacking this is quite complex, but it can be broken down into two major components: practice and learning. These two aspects of moral education go hand in hand and are crucial to the moral development of virtuous individuals. By “practice” it is meant a process that involves the training or habituation of our emotions and attitudes. Our
3. Virtue Ethics–•–19
ability to manifest the virtues can be developed through training and practice in the same way that training and practice prepares an athlete or an athletic team for competition. The marathon runner trains daily so that he or she is mentally and physically able to complete a grueling 26.2-mile race. Similarly, we can daily train our emotions and attitudes. By reflecting on the moral contours of situations, we can consciously moderate our emotions, attitudes, and conduct so that they are appropriate to the given situation. Over time, these attitudes and emotions become a habitual part of who we are and how we function in the world. This may seem to be a mechanical view of training, but this is not the case. As we will see, reflection, learning, and knowledge are vital components of this process and moral education overall. As mentioned, learning is another major part of moral education in virtue ethics. To grasp the morally relevant aspects of a situation and identify the intermediate, individuals need to be aware of and sensitized to the interests of others, their own bias or prejudice, issues of power, privilege and marginalization, and so on. This requires that individuals not only fully develop the reasoning and analytical skills that will allow them to grasp and evaluate these factors but also that they develop a level of social (or civic) consciousness regarding their community and the world around them. This connection to the community is central to virtue ethics because some virtues (e.g., munificence and compassion) can only be made manifest through interactions with other individuals. Also, the institutions and relationships within a community help to shape individuals’ characters. Thus, virtuous individuals have a robust capacity for situational perception that allows them to recognize the moral contours and to judge which features may be more important than others in that situation.
Virtue Ethics, Deontology, and Consequentialism As we noted previously, virtue ethics addresses a core question that is fundamentally different than those that other normative theories address. These other normative ethical theories focus on providing moral agents with universal moral principles or rules that will guide their actions across various circumstances. Deontological ethical theories focus on principles and rules that capture universal moral duties and rights. One example of this is the first formulation of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative: One must never treat humanity as a mere means but always as an end in itself. This deontological principle guides moral agents’ actions across contexts. Consequentialist theories focus on rules and principles that will produce the best state of affairs or consequences. Act utilitarianism is an example of this type of theory. This theory claims that we are morally obligated to perform an act if the act in question will promote more good (for those affected) than any other alternative act.
The benefit of these theories is that they provide clear guidance to individuals. When applied to particular circumstances, these principles will prescribe and/or proscribe certain actions. These theories, however, also have serious faults. The emphasis on moral principles and rules overlooks the importance of motivations. All that seems to be required for moral life is that individuals follow a list of rules and/or commandments regardless of whether their intentions and motivations align with the content of the rules or commandments. Moreover, these theories are not always sensitive to the moral contours of real life situations since they focus on the overarching applicable principles and/or rules. On the other hand, virtue ethics, as we have seen, emphasizes the central role of motives and emotions in moral education and a morally good life. A virtuous person acts from some particular motivation that arises from a grasp of the moral contours of certain situations. Deontological and consequentialist theories, because of their focus on rules and principles, do not link motivation and action in this way. As such, virtue ethics is uniquely suited to be a moral foundation for civic engagement and service-learning.
Service-Learning and Virtue Ethics Service-learning provides students with the “opportunity to practice citizenship, and engage in value exploration” (Chapdelaine, Ruiz, Warchal, & Wells, 2005, p. 5). The overall goal is to foster “the development of democratic principles such as tolerance, fairness, concern and respect for others, and a sense of responsibility to be civically knowledgeable and active” (Chapdelaine et al., 2005, p. 5). Virtue ethics is well suited to actualize both of these aspects of service-learning. Value exploration is also a key part of virtue ethics. As we have seen, virtue ethics requires individuals to reflect deeply on their emotions and motivations as well as the interests and values of others. The value exploration and analysis that is part of moral education in virtue ethics enables the virtuous person to fully grasp the moral contours of particular circumstances. In addition, we also have observed that practice is a major part of moral education in virtue ethics. Virtues are inculcated by training our emotions and attitudes through action. We have also noted that the virtuous person has robust civic (or social) consciousness that shapes his or her motivations and guides his or her actions. This will foster the civic responsibility and knowledge that are among the goals of service-learning. Last, the values listed above (i.e., tolerance, fairness, and compassion) are virtues. Consequently, the values can be instilled in individuals’ character using the same process of moral education outlined earlier. There are other possible powerful connections between service-learning and virtue ethics. Power, privilege, prejudice, and ignorance are concepts that can present major obstacles to service-learning initiatives. If students are
20–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
unable to confront and gain a deep comprehension of these topics, then it is possible for service-learning initiatives to devolve into empty pro-forma activities or mere résumé enhancers. More troubling is the possibility that servicelearning initiatives that do not adequately address these topics could end up re-inscribing morally problematic attitudes and beliefs (e.g., paternalism, racism, and classism). Since virtuous individuals, in developing their character, must confront, comprehend, and become sensitized to these topics, virtue ethics is suited to aid service-learning initiatives in dealing with the issues just mentioned. In addition, the core commitment of virtue ethics to transforming the character of individuals would address concerns about a lack of true commitment to the goals of service-learning.
Virtue Ethics in the Classroom The moral education process discussed earlier can be included in the classroom in several ways. Instructors can include activities and exercises. Specifically, they should integrate into coursework multiple exercises that sensitize students to issues of privilege, power, and prejudice. These exercises should include class time devoted to critical reflection or deconstruction of the attitudes, beliefs, and norms brought to light during the exercise. One particularly useful in-class exercise on privilege and social identity was developed by Gerakina Arlene Sgoutas and other faculty at Metropolitan State College (Allen, n.d.). The exercise involves lists of statements that capture various types of privilege (e.g., racial, class, religious, sexual, and gender) at stations around the room. Each list is assigned a color. When instructed, participants go to each station and take a copy of the list for that station. Participants then read each list quietly and place an “x” next to each statement that they can answer in the affirmative. Next, participants gather one bead of the appropriate color for each “x” on the respective list. Once all the stations have
References and Further Readings Adams, R. (2006). A theory of virtue. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Allen, B. (n.d.). Privilege exercise. Retrieved from http://www .differencematters.info/uploads/pdf/privilege-beads-exercise.pdf Annas, J. (1993). The morality of happiness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Anscombe, G. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33, 1–19. Carr, D., & Steutel, J. (Eds.). (2012). Virtue ethics and moral education. New York, NY: Routledge. Chapdelaine, A., Ruiz, A., Warchal, J., & Wells, C. (2005). Service-learning code of ethics. Bolton, MA: Anker.
been visited, students string their beads together with pieces of string. Next, participants reflect on the importance of the exercise and how each participant experienced the activity. This is followed by a critical exploration of intersecting identities and privilege/oppression. For the purposes of moral education in connection with service-learning and virtue ethics, a discussion of how privilege affects our situational perceptions and moral judgments could be added. In-class activities like this could be coupled with reflection assignments where students further critically analyze their beliefs and attitudes, as well as those of society, regarding the issues raised during in-class exercises. This would provide another point where instructors provide targeted feedback that would aid students’ moral development. After students have begun this process of belief and value examination, they should participate in situational analysis where they can refine their situational perceptions by examining case study situations. This can include both in-class and out-of-class assignments and activities. Also, students should participate in situational role play where they actively take on the interest and values of other individuals.
Conclusion Service-learning engages students not only in increased levels of civic and community commitment but also promotes value exploration and development. Because the process of moral education that is central to virtue ethics promotes the development of character and the capacity for situational perception, virtue ethics can be a strong foundation for service-learning. As Aristotle indicated, the virtuous person will perform the right act in the right way for the right reason (Nicomachean Ethics 1109a27–29). This can be an invaluable tool for service-learning initiatives to utilize. More importantly, virtue ethics can transform the character of individuals and enable them to actualize their potential as active responsible citizens.
Crisp, R. (Ed.). (1996). How should one live? Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Crisp, R., & Slote, M. (Eds.). (1997). Virtue ethics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Dent, N. (1984). The moral psychology of the virtues. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gardiner, S. (Ed.). (2005). Virtue ethics, old and new. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hudson, S. (1986). Human character and morality. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Hursthouse, R., Lawrence, G., & Quinn, W. (1995). Virtues and reasons. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
3. Virtue Ethics–•–21 MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue (2nd ed.). London, England: Duckworth. Robinson, T. A. (1995). Aristotle in outline. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. Sherman, N. (1989). The fabric of character. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Slote, M. (1993). Virtue ethics and democratic values. Journal of Social Philosophy, 14, 5–37.
Slote, M. (2001). Morals from motives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Slote, M. (2011). The impossibility of perfection: Aristotle, feminism, and the complexities of ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Statman, D. (Ed.). (1997). Virtue ethics. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
4 INFUSING ETHICAL DECISION MAKING INTO SERVICE-LEARNING EXPERIENCES LINDSAY A. BLUMER Ripon College
S
ervice-learning curricula often focus on practical application of projects and include general discussions of the ethics inherent in the individual service opportunity or community situation. In this scenario, ethics-based reflection is often relegated to an activity done in the moment when an issue arises or to address risk management issues. This chapter explores the necessity of integrating an ongoing ethics reflection component into all service-learning experiences, discusses a framework for implementation of the ethics reflection component, and provides teaching approaches and strategies. The chapter examines how to shift the focus from caseby-case situational ethics to a student-friendly framework of ethical decision making throughout the entire servicelearning experience with guided discussion and reflective activities. Practical sample learning and assessment rubrics and flexible lesson plans highlight the applications of in- and out-of-classroom learning that involves students in ethical decision making throughout the entire process of service-learning.
Background and Review of Literature Reflection as a key component of service-learning projects is generally accepted as the link that couples student experiences in the community to academic learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Service-learning guidebooks and models such as Cress, Collier, and Reitenauer (2005) offer a framework that incorporates a reflection component with references to ethics such as having agreed-upon goals and values, mutual trust, respect, authenticity, commitment,
balance of power, and sharing resources as well as sharing credit for accomplishments (Cress et al., 2005). In this context ethics is described as a system in which morals, or personal character, are applied using individual or group relative values. This sentiment is echoed across the service-learning literature by advising practitioners to challenge students in testing their assumptions about their values and exploring ways in which their values may be altered by the service-learning experience (Steinberg, Bringle, & Williams, 2010). Likewise, through reflection, students should be able to demonstrate how their personal frameworks fit within the service (Kaye, 2010). References to the importance of ethics in the service-learning experience also enter the philosophical discussions of servicelearning: “Philanthropists hold that universities fulfill their social responsibility in two ways: first, by helping people to acquire the intellectual tools demanded by contemporary civilized life and second, by concerning themselves with the development of epistemological skills and the self-reflective development of moral values” (Abel, 2004, p. 48). Finally, studies about service-learning have made connections that students who engage in service-learning tend to “be more moral and ethical in their decision making” and those skills are actually strengthened through servicelearning experiences (Cress et al., 2005, p. 13).
Current Issues and Controversies Although service-learning literature acknowledges the important role ethics plays in the student experience and 23
24–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
perhaps in even producing more ethical students, the framework for an integrated ethical reflection component is key in assisting students in preparing for these experiences and receiving the maximum educational benefit (Chapdelaine, Ruiz, Warchal, & Wells, 2005). Studies show that high school and college students who had ethical decision-making material integrated with service-learning were significantly more consistent in their ethical reasoning and more likely to use an ethical perspective than those who did not have an ethical component (Gorman, Duffy, & Heffernan, 1994; Lemming, 2001). Integrating ethical decision-making components for all students even in nonservice-learning contexts is important; however, the focus for the following discussion will remain strictly on the service-learning experience. Ethics or ethical decision making are topics that are presumed to have resonance with the general population and with students (Sternberg, 2010). Sometimes described as “common sense” of what is right or wrong or living by the “golden rule,” these ideas act as the placeholder for larger discussions on ethical decision making. Incorporating the student voice is a core component of service-learning; therefore, students bringing their own attitudes and core values can be useful in the creation and development of a service-learning project and have tremendous positive effects for all involved (Steinberg et al., 2010). However, without preimplementation reflection centered on ethics and values, these inherent traits hinder service-learning outcomes if not addressed or explored through a variety of reflective activities prior to the first journey out of the classroom (Steinberg et al., 2010). Students may unintentionally cause more harm than good by making assumptions about those served, viewing partners as devoid of their own abilities or advising partners in ways that are unsafe in their current situation. These unwitting actions act as a block to understanding the underlying causes of social justice issues and subsequently do not allow students to fully experience or reflect on the project and therefore the curricular material. Service-learning ethics discussions must refrain from a few false assumptions: that students know their own core values, where those values originate, how those values fit within a larger ethical decision-making framework, and how that framework intimately influences their servicelearning experience and the experiences of the community partner. Without a guide for addressing these assumptions, a discussion of ethics often focuses solely on codes of ethics in the discipline or professional ethics. While these are important topics, it is necessary to put students’ own ethics into the framework in which the service-learning will occur. This framework must also take into account but ultimately move beyond the rigors of risk management of student and client safety (Steinberg et al., 2010).
Practices and Methods Framework and Teaching Strategies Students typically come to the service-learning experience with some notion of right and wrong. Yet their inexperience discussing and understanding ethics, combined with a possible lack of experience working in a community-based setting, can inhibit learning despite the best of intentions (Sternberg, 2010). Before stepping outside the classroom, students need time to reflect on their own values and ethics. The following framework addresses these learning goals. Core Values Values are qualities that dictate the worth of tangible and/or intangible items and guide individual, cultural, or universal decision making in daily life (Chapdelaine et al., 2005). Students may be able to articulate what things or people mean to them but it is important to connect these feelings to specific qualities. Sometimes students have a better understanding of their core values when asked to relate how they came to prioritize these qualities over others. The lesson plan in Sidebar 4.1 is a simple exercise that can foster discussion about what core values are, and why and how they became core values. Guided discussion will also help draw the line between core values and morals (which are ideas about what is right and wrong) (Chapdelaine et al., 2005). Ethical Decision Making Ethics may best be defined as the product of consistent reflection on morality and values (Purtilo, 1999). Making decisions based on reflection and informed by core values does not always come naturally to students, so providing opportunities to practice this behavior before a servicelearning opportunity provides context. Students can use a model to organize their thinking about feelings, emotion, and reactions. Similarly to Kohlberg’s (1981) idea of progressing through a series of steps for moral reasoning and therefore the basis for ethical behavior, one model designed specifically for service-learning by Chapdelaine et al. (2005) consists of six distinct steps: (1) identify and define the ethical dilemma, (2) find the main points and gather information, (3) propose courses of action, (4) determine and analyze the consequences for each proposed course of action, (5) decide on the best course of action, and (6) evaluate and reflect on the decision. Service in Context For students to practice their ethical decision-making skills, students should know how their perspectives influence their actions and conclusions. A personal inventory of
4. Infusing Ethical Decision Making Into Service-Learning Experiences–•–25
Sidebar 4.1
At Your Core
Objective: Students will understand what a “value” is and can identify where two or more of their core values have been formed and how this influences their thinking. Materials: Core Values worksheet, list of core values Sources: Influenced by Frank, L. S., Carlin, C., Christ, J. M., & Wisconsin Leadership Institute. (2008). Leading together: Foundations of collaborative leadership, curriculum for the classroom, Grades 8–12. Bethany, OK: Wood ‘N’ Barnes; University of Kentucky Student Activities, Leadership & Involvement. (2013). Values & ethics [Online]. Retrieved from http://getinvolved.uky.edu/Leadership/pdf/Values%20and%20Ethics.pdf. Suggested Procedure: Have students study a list of core values. Ask them to create two columns (or provide a worksheet with two distinct columns). On the left, have students write down the top five core values that describe them best. When each student has completed this task ask them to write down where they learned that core value from the corresponding right column. Ask each student to share at least two core values and why they are important to them (and who/what they received these values from). Sample Reflection Questions What are core values? Who informs your core values? Can core values change? Why? How do core values relate to our ethical decision making (e.g., what is “right” or “wrong”)? Describe a situation where you needed to make an ethical decision—which core values guided you? Facilitation Notes Students often misuse the terms “values” and “ethics.” It is important to make sure to demonstrate the distinction and how each is used in application. This introductory activity can be repeated at the end of the service-learning project.
students’ backgrounds with discussion about perspectivetaking assists them in forming the connection to why and how they make the decisions or reached the conclusions they have in the past (and predict how they might react in the future). The lesson plan in Sidebar 4.2 offers an exercise that forces students to look at their own perceptions and discuss how others perceive them, their backgrounds, and their decisions. With this exercise and additional readings (see the Further Readings section), students can fit their core values and ethical decision-making model into real situations on a variety of social issues or specific community situations. Reflection Tools Reflection tools that best suit an integrated ethical reflection component can be varied and diverse depending on the skill, experience, and characteristics of the student participants. Tools such as role playing, case studies, and weekly journals encourage students to use the framework to put their service-learning project into an ethical context. Relating material back to core values and ethical decision making assists students in perspective taking so they understand the core issues and can address them through service-learning with minimal harm and maximum benefit (Steinberg et al., 2010).
When students gain ethical awareness or competence before, during, and after the experience, they make less damaging judgments and take more positive actions so that service-learning becomes less about saving individuals and more about serving the common good (Johnson, Evers, & Vare, 2010). Table 4.1 shows the criteria for three levels of ethical competence.
Assessment Reflection and assessment can sometimes go hand in hand (Kaye, 2010). Yet, it may be challenging to assess student learning when it involves the examination of personal values and ethics in the context of the service-learning project. One way is to use a rubric that addresses the students’ critical thinking about the intersection of their values and ethics and their application to the project rather than the values or ethics themselves. This type of rubric (see Table 4.2) helps focus on the three areas of assessment for service-learning: student learning, impact of the service, and the process (Kaye, 2010). Critical thinking, or finding one’s assumptions and then assessing them for accuracy and validity, can assist in developing a rubric for service-learning assessment based on Brookfield’s (2012) critical thinking model, which encompasses the (Continued on page 28)
26–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Sidebar 4.2
Who Are You and What Do Others See?
Objective: Students will identify intersections in their personal history that inform their perspectives and how others perceive them. Materials: Grid paper Suggested Procedure Have students write five things they cannot change about themselves in a row across the top of the page. Then, have students write five things they can change about themselves in a column down the left side of the page. Using the grid like a map, have students find the intersections of each of the 10 items. At the intersections, have students write how those two items inform their world. Then, ask them to write down how others perceive them because of those intersections. Have each student share at least three intersections. Sample Reflection Questions What surprised you about your “intersections”? Why? Why do you think these intersections are important? How do others perceive you at these intersections? How do you perceive others and their intersections? Why is this important when working in the community? Facilitation Notes Students may need a lot of guidance to begin the reflection on this activity, but once they understand the concept of how their “intersections” have influenced their life, they are able to better understand why others perceive them and why they perceive others in true or false lights. Source: Influenced by Galura, J. A., Pasque, P. A., Schoem, D. & Howard, J. (Eds.). (2004). Engaging the whole of service-learning, diversity, and learning communities. Ann Arbor, MI: The OCSL Press at the University of Michigan.
Ethical Competence
Judgment
Actions
Personal interest only (e.g., getting a good grade)
• Little concept of what change is needed • Views equity in personal terms only • Does not insert self into role of responsibility
• Uses general terms and ideas • Wants everyone to get along • Looks for a way to demonstrate personal skill
Status quo (e.g., current status, fairness is about treating everyone the same)
• Ideas for change are only what has been done • Considers social conventions as ways to promote equity • Individual believes every person is fulfilled in exactly the same way— usually how he or she is fulfilled
• Wants to maintain current order or structure • Desire to treat everyone the same or like self • Attempts new projects only as a last resort
Social change agent (e.g., social norms must change, equity is treating people fairly by considering differences)
• Sees multiple perspectives and solutions (e.g., views issues from perspectives of marginalized persons or groups) • Considers moral and ethical implications of decisions and solutions • Plans action that supports all
• Implements plans that have been ethically vetted (e.g., applies what he or she learned in framework) • Projects challenge current systems of inequity • Cares about perspectives of marginalized populations
Table 4.1
Ethical Competence Rubric
SOURCE: Adapted from table on p. 57 in Johnson, L. E., Evers, R., & Vare, J. W. (2010). Disconnection as a path to discovery. In P. C. Murrell, M. Diez, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. L. Schussler (Eds.), Teaching as a moral practice: defining, developing, and assessing professional dispositions in teacher education (pp. 53–72). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
4. Infusing Ethical Decision Making Into Service-Learning Experiences–•–27
0 No demonstration
1 Attempted demonstration
3 Proficient demonstration
4 Sophisticated demonstration
Consciousness of self
Unaware of core values or behaviors that signal judgment based on core value
Recognizes some values and behaviors but cannot connect them to service-learning project interactions
Recognizes some values and/or behaviors but does not consistently connect them to service-learning interactions
Able to recognize and demonstrate values and/or behaviors as connected to service-learning project interactions
Able to recognize, demonstrate, and explain values and/ or behaviors in the context of self and society (larger context than project)
Common good
Does not understand ethical components of solutions to social justice
Recognizes common purpose but cannot connect to own behavior
Recognizes common purpose but connects to own behavior only some of the time
Able to recognize and demonstrate common purpose and connect to own behavior
Recognizes and explains common purpose in the context of own contributions and behavior
Cultural perception
Does not perceive cultural cues
Perceives some cultural cues but does not connect them to project/self
Perceives some cultural cues and connects them to project or self only some of the time
Perceives cultural cues and connects them to project or self most of the time
Perceives and can identify cultural cues and puts context to them for project or self
External perspectives
Does not consider external perspectives about self
Considers some external perspectives but cannot relate them to project/ self
Considers some external perspectives but relates them to project or self some of the time
Considers external perspectives and relates them to project or self most of the time
Considers and applies external perspectives and relates them to project or self
Social justice
Does not perceive social justice issue(s)
Perceives only general social justice issue(s)
Perceives social justice issue(s) but not in context
Perceives social justice issue(s) in context
Perceives and applies understanding of social justice issue(s)
Active reflection
Does not apply ethical decision making when reflecting
Occasionally applies ethical decision making when reflecting
Applies ethical decision making most of the time during reflection
Applies ethical decision making during reflection each time but has trouble connecting to specific project
Always applies ethical decision making during reflection each time and connects to specific project goals
Resilience
Does not exhibit resiliency when presented with challenges to values
Exhibits some resiliency when presented with challenges to values
Exhibits resiliency when presented with challenges to values occasionally but cannot apply them to future challenges
Exhibits resiliency when presented with challenges to values but cannot apply resilient behavior to future challenges
Exhibits resiliency when presented with challenges and applies resilient behavior to future challenges
Criteria
Table 4.2
2 Partial demonstration
Assessment Rubric
SOURCE: Format of rubric based on Coverdell World Wise Schools. (1998). Looking at ourselves and others. Peace Corps [Online]. Retrieved from http://files.peacecorps.gov/wws/pdf/LookingPart1Intro.pdf
28–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT (Continued from page 25)
following steps: (a) discover the assumptions that guide decisions, action, and choices; (b) check the accuracy of these assumptions by exploring various perspectives; and (c) make informed decisions that are based on these tested assumptions. Through community partner and/or client evaluations and anecdotal interviews, presurveys and postsurveys for students, weekly experience journals, and other reflective writings or presentations students should be able to demonstrate and realize the application of their ethical decisionmaking framework. In essence all participants “evaluate (assess) an experience, draw insights (analyze), try something new (implement) based on those insights, and evaluate the experience again. This evaluation cycle is fundamentally about learning and putting those new insights directly back into practice” (Cress et al., 2005, p. 126).
and quantitative data on learning outcomes, character development over time, and how service-learning with an integrated ethics component affects learning outcomes. This research may provide the data necessary to enhance student experiences through service-learning. Practitioners do not need to be philosophers or ethicists to implement this type of component; these discussions are happening in the classroom across disciplines on any given day. The integrated ethical reflection component provides tools for practitioners to contextualize students’ thoughts or feelings and allows them to draw out the mitigating attitudes and beliefs as well as potential actions and solutions. Transformation in student learning begins before the servicelearning project starts when an integrated ethical reflection component is present. This component gives students a better foundational knowledge base to start from and in fact is the ethical thing to do as service-learning administrators.
Conclusion and Implications Integrating an ethical reflection component to servicelearning projects enriches student learning by tying their service-learning work to their own core values and assisting them in practicing an ethical decision-making framework in situations where their perspectives and ideas are challenged. Students are aware of their perspectives and bias throughout the process, and they have a safe space to discuss them as they learn and serve. When students practice their ethical decision-making skills, assessment can focus on the application of critical thinking skills using a common language. The implications of incorporating this component in service-learning rely on several factors. First, servicelearning participants must know their community and the potential clients they will be serving. Without knowing the needs, assets, and mission of the community partner(s), students may be oblivious to the challenges and capacities of those within the organization (Cress et al., 2005). Second, all participants must understand the limitations of servicelearning including self-reporting and/or self-selection bias, lack of control groups, and small sample sizes (Steinberg et al., 2010). Third, instructors must understand not only the community, potential clients, and limitations of service-learning but also the frameworks and models for critical thinking, assessment, and ethical reasoning. These tools may not be suited for instructors who have not been trained or had experience with a mentor in using them, or who have little time to offer the full range of preparation and reflection. The inherent risks then include the failure of the service-learning experience for students and detrimental effects on the community that is to be served. Finally, there will always be external ethical issues to address such as confidentiality of students and clients, the duration and timeliness of typical service-learning, and the nature of group versus individual work (Kaye, 2010). As service-learning continues to be researched and implemented globally, there is a need for additional qualitative
Resources Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, http://appe.indiana.edu The Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE) advances scholarship, education, and practice in practical and professional ethics. Through its individual and institutional members, APPE supports and trains the next generation of faculty and professionals, works to improve ethical conduct in the workplace, and advances public dialogue in ethics and values. The Aspen Institute Center for Business Education, www.caseplace.org CasePlace.org, a project of the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education, is an online library of reading materials, multimedia content, and teaching modules on social, environmental, and ethical issues in business. National Youth Leadership Council, www.nylc.org The National Youth Leadership Council provides programs and services that develop young leaders, support educators, and advance the field of service-learning. Women’s Media Center, www.womensmediacenter.com The Women’s Media Center works with the media to ensure women’s stories are told and women’s voices are heard through the following: media advocacy campaigns, media monitoring for sexism, creating original content, training women and girls to participate in media, and promoting media experienced women experts. WMC is directly engaged with the media at all levels to ensure that a diverse group of women is present in newsrooms, on air, in print and online, in film, entertainment, and theater, as sources and subjects.
4. Infusing Ethical Decision Making Into Service-Learning Experiences–•–29
References and Further Readings Abel, C. F. (2004). A justification of the philanthropic model. In B. W. Speck & S. Hoppe (Eds.), Service learning: History, theory, and issues (pp. 45–57) Westport, CT: Praeger. Boss, J. A. (1994). The effect of community service work on the moral development of college ethics students. Journal of Moral Education, 23(2), 183–197. Brookfield, S. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: tools and techniques to help students questions their assumptions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chapdelaine, A., Ruiz, A., Warchal, J., & Wells, C. (2005). Service-learning code of ethics. Bolton, MA: Anker. Cohen, R. (2012). Be good. How to navigate the ethics of everything. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books. Coverdell World Wise Schools. (1998). Looking at ourselves and others. Peace Corps [Online]. Retrieved from http:// files.peacecorps.gov/wws/pdf/LookingPart1Intro.pdf Cress, C. M., Collier, P. J., & Reitenauer, V. L. (2005). Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning across the disciplines. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Davis, A. (2006). What we don’t talk about when we talk about service. In A. Davis & E. Lynn (Eds.), The civically engaged reader. Great Books Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.american.edu/ocl/volunteer/upload/DavisWhatwedonttalkabout.pdf Eby, J. W. (1998, March). Why service-learning is bad [Online]. Retrieved from http://servicelearning.duke.edu/uploads/ media_items/whyslbad.original.pdf Eyler, J., & Giles Jr., D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Frank, L. S., Carlin, C., Christ, J. M., & Wisconsin Leadership Institute. (2008). Leading together: Foundations of collaborative leadership, curriculum for the classroom, Grades 8–12. Bethany, OK: Wood ‘N’ Barnes. Galura, J. A., Pasque, P. A., Schoem, D., & Howard, J. (Eds.). (2004). Engaging the whole of service-learning, diversity, and learning communities. Ann Arbor, MI: OCSL Press at the University of Michigan. Gorman, M., Duffy, J., & Heffernan, M. (1994). Service experience and the moral development of college students. Religious Education, 89(3), 422–431. Hunter, J. D. (2000). The death of character. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group. Illich, I. (1990). To hell with good intentions. In J. Kendall (Ed.), Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service (Vol. I, pp. 314–320). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
James, S., Quinn, G., & Saedi, G. (2009). The new Americans. Kartemquin Films. Johnson, L.E., Evers, R., & Vare, J. W. (2010). Disconnection as a path to discovery. In P. C. Murrell, M. Diez, S. FeimanNemser, & D. L. Schussler (Eds.), Teaching as a moral practice: defining, developing, and assessing professional dispositions in teacher education (pp. 53–72). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Kaye, C. B. (2010). The complete guide to service learning: Proven, practical ways to engage students in civic responsibility, academic curriculum, & social action. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: moral stages and the idea of justice (1st. ed.). San Francisco, CA & Cambridge, MA: Harper & Row. Kolker, A., & Alvarez, L. (Directors). (2001). People like us: Social class in America [Motion picture]. United States: The Center for New American Media. Lemming, J. S. (2001). Integrating a structured ethical reflection curriculum into high school community service experiences: Impact on students’ socio-moral development. Adolescence, 36(141), 33–45. Purtilo, R. (1999). Ethical dimensions in the health care professions (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders. Romano, U. R. (Director). (2011). The harvest/La cosecha [Motion picture]. United States: Cinema Libre Distribution. Steinberg, K. S., Bringle, R. G., & Williams, M. J. (2010). Service-learning research primer. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://education.ufl.edu/learnandserve/resources/ Research/9054_service-learning_research_primer.pdf Sternberg, R. T. (2010). Teaching for ethical reasoning in liberal education. Liberal Education, 96, 32–37. Tannenbaum, S. (2008). Research, advocacy, and political engagement: Multidisciplinary perspectives through service learning (G. S. Eisman, Series Ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Toole, J., & Toole, P. (2001). Reflection as a tool for turning service experiences into learning experiences. In C. Kinsley & K. McPherson (Eds.), Enriching the curriculum through service-learning (pp. 99–114). Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum Supervision & Development. United Nations. (1948). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/documents/ udhr University of Kentucky Student Activities, Leadership & Involvement. (2013). Values & ethics [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.learningace.com/doc/2279606/3e0cccc28 43fab54d9b6acc3705b4a2d/values-and-ethics
5 EPISTEMOLOGIES OF IGNORANCE Foundation for Community Engagement KAREN FROST-ARNOLD Hobart and William Smith Colleges
While one is educating oneself about the experiences and perspectives of the peoples one is ignorant about, and in part as a corrective to the errors of one’s ways, one should also be studying one’s own ignorance. Ignorance is not something simple: it is not a simple lack, absence or emptiness, and it is not a passive state. Marilyn Frye, 1983, p. 118
T
his chapter argues that service-learning provides powerful opportunities for students to (a) study the contours of their own ignorance and the social structures that shape it and (b) learn to handle ignorance ethically. Like some postmodern service-learning pedagogies, this approach destabilizes students’ beliefs, thereby promoting social justice by helping students unlearn oppressive ignorance and develop virtuous character traits, such as humility. This chapter includes practical examples of classroom activities that use theories of ignorance to enrich service-learning courses, both educationally and ethically.
Literature Review Classically, epistemology is the study of knowledge; an epistemology explains the nature and origins of knowledge. Correspondingly, an epistemology of ignorance
explains what ignorance is and how it is produced and maintained. Ignorance can result from either believing a false claim or having an absence of belief about a claim (Mills, 2007). Epistemologists of ignorance have shown that, in a world of inequality, one’s social position shapes what one does not know. Often those with privileges of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, or religion are ignorant of social injustices and their own responsibility in maintaining unjust systems (Blumenfeld, 2006; Frye, 1983; McIntosh, 1998; Mills, 2007). Ignorance of privilege perpetuates the myth of meritocracy (McIntosh, 1998). Whites are often unaware of White privilege—for example, many do not notice how easy it is to find cultural products (e.g., TV shows and textbooks) that present their race in a positive light. Men are often ignorant of how their sex grants them unearned credibility and protects them from harassment. Straight people are frequently ignorant of how medical-legal discrimination prevents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people from visiting loved ones in the hospital. Christians adhering to mainline Christian denominations are often ignorant of how most Western societies promote Christian standards and cultural practices. This lack of awareness that one’s social location confers unearned advantages can lead the privileged to believe that the benefits they receive are deserved. Thus, the myth of meritocracy is perpetuated, and victim-blaming stereotypes of the oppressed persist. Ignorance of privilege is not simply a matter of an individual’s refusal to look at the facts; social norms, cultural ideologies, and collective memory all shape 31
32–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
ignorance. Consider White ignorance—a nonknowing caused, in part, by White racism (Mills, 2007). Whites are socialized to follow White social scripts—behaviors and attitudes expected of Whites (Bailey, 1998). These social norms govern where Whites do and do not go, who they do and do not trust, what media sources they do and do not consume, and so on. Thus social scripts shape what Whites do and do not know. For example, the constant message to Whites that urban neighborhoods are dangerous affects their movement and causes many Whites to be ignorant of life in diverse urban neighborhoods.1 In addition, cultural ideologies shape ignorance. The so-called color-blind ideology—the view that it is racist to see color and that we should ignore race—promotes ignorance. It chastises as racist those who point out racial differences in admission, hiring, or treatment. The color-blind response to racism that “We’re all human and equal” ignores the fact that racism persists and we are not all treated equally (Bailey, 2007, p. 85). Furthermore, White ignorance is caused by White racial domination of our collective memory (Mills, 2007). Collective memory is our social sense of history; it is encoded in textbooks, ceremonies, holidays, and monuments. Textbooks that downplay the role of slavery in the founding of America, skim over the Indian genocide, or neglect the internment of Japanese-Americans all promote White ignorance of the ongoing history of racism. Additionally, White intimidation of people of color who witnessed racist injustices has created gaps in the historical record (Mills, 2007). Many of the same social forces shaping White ignorance also cause other forms of ignorance structured by sexism, heterosexism, xenophobia, class privilege, religious privilege, and so on. Given that ignorance both results from privilege and props up unjust systems, one might think that ignorance only has harmful uses. One might conclude that as students and educators, we should always strive to remove ignorance. However, epistemologists of ignorance have also shown that ignorance can sometimes be used to promote just ends. Using what Bailey (2007) called “strategic ignorance,” oppressed people can use privileged people’s ignorance to survive and resist oppression (Bailey, 2007; Hoagland, 2007; Hundleby, 2005; Lugones, 2003). Some enslaved people relied on Whites’ ignorant assumptions of their illiteracy as protection while they secretly wrote passes to allow fellow enslaved people to leave the plantation (Hoagland, 2007).2 Similarly, women’s rights activists keep the location of women’s shelters secret from batterers, and LGBT people often rely on the secrecy of the “closet” for protection in hostile environments (Hundleby, 2005). In such circumstances, were a privileged person to discover oppressed people’s use of strategic ignorance and disseminate this knowledge to other privileged people, the privileged person would thereby threaten the survival
and resistance of the oppressed. In sum, ignorance is complex; it has both oppressive and liberatory uses that require careful consideration.
Current Issues in Service-Learning Service-Learning, Privilege, and Ignorance I have learned that there are zillions of other things going on in the lives of my students as well as myself. Also, just because they are poor does not mean that they sit around all day staring at the walls. They have got just as much class, are just as ambitious, and have just as many dreams as we do. (Susan [pseudonym], literacy tutor, quoted in Hayes & Cuban, 1997, p. 73)
As Susan’s quote shows, working with community members can challenge students’ stereotypes. Servicelearning can push students outside the boundaries normally prescribed to them by social scripts. They can learn information that challenges cultural ideologies and aspects of collective memory that promote oppressive stereotypes. In addition, service-learning can provide an opportunity for students to study why they were ignorant previously. Students can ask themselves important questions: What did I learn? What social myths and institutions caused my previous ignorance? What does this experience show me about other forms of ignorance I might have? For example, Susan might ask herself what led her to believe previously that poor students were unambitious. Upon reflection, she might notice media images of the poor, the absence of texts by working-class people in her education, class segregation that circumscribes her interactions with people in poverty, or the prevalence of cultural deficit models that blame lack of success on “deficient” home cultures. In these ways, Susan can learn to study how ignorance is produced. That said, this rosy picture should be tempered with caution. Service-learning can also perpetuate ignorance. Students can bring their stereotypes to service-learning, actively resist having their ignorance challenged, or unconsciously focus on information that reinforces stereotypes. Hayes and Cuban (1997) reported that while Susan did come to believe, in theory, that her students were dealing with systemic inequities, she became frustrated at their lack of attendance and attributed it to individual lack of motivation. Deeply held stereotypes are often resistant to evidence. In addition, some students actively resist having their views challenged (Jones, Gilbride-Brown, & Gasiorski, 2005). Finally, the opportunity to study marginalized communities for one’s own edification is itself a facet of privilege. For example, racially minoritized people have long been surveilled as objects of study for the benefit of Whites (Cross, 2005). Students can be ignorant of how privilege structures their service-learning opportunities.
5. Epistemologies of Ignorance–•–33
Thus, while service-learning can be a powerful tool, the process of unlearning one’s ignorance is often a long journey infused with power relations.
Service-Learning, Resistance, and Strategic Ignorance A common concern about service-learning is whether it promotes a paternalistic charity model of civic engagement (a model related to what Batts, 2002, called “dysfunctional rescuing”) (Boyle-Baise, 1999). Students often perceive themselves as benevolent agents of change and community members as mere passive recipients of help. Studying strategic ignorance can both dispel this oppressive view of service-learning and open the eyes of students, faculty, and administrators to ethical dilemmas that may otherwise go unrecognized. Providing examples of reasons why clients choose to hide information from professionals and institutions emphasizes oppressed people’s agency. Students may learn that clients are strategically using the students’ own ignorant stereotypes of the clients, or they may become aware that community members keep secrets as a form of resistance to invasive service-learning initiatives. Such awareness undermines the view that community members are simply passive, grateful recipients of students’ charity (or apathetic people who lack motivation to be helped). It also suggests a different conception of the relationship between student and community member— one in which students can join in partnership with oppressed people who are already resisting oppression and negotiating unjust systems. Strategic ignorance also generates important ethical questions for those in a position to transmit the knowledge of the oppressed to the privileged. Sarah Hoagland (2001) argued that researchers should think carefully about whose knowledge they share, whose ignorance they undo, which audience they inform, and whose interests they serve. In the context of strategic ignorance, this draws attention to how researchers can harm the interests of the oppressed by transmitting their knowledge to the privileged, thereby undermining their strategies for navigating oppressive systems. Unfortunately, community members are often deprived of the opportunity to manage dissemination of information gained from them: The results of research in marginalized communities often are not shared with community members since researchers focus on publishing results in journals that circulate within the academic elite (Jordan, Gust, & Scheman, 2011). Educators and students involved in service-learning face these ethical dilemmas. When privileged students enter a marginalized community, they can become privy to information that could be damaging if disseminated outside the community. Students are often placed in organizations with oppressive, ineffective, or dehumanizing institutional policies. Students may learn that clients use the ignorance of service professionals to survive and resist
oppression. These situations place students in a difficult ethical position. If unaware of the ethical dilemma, then students may simply report what they have learned to officials, thereby potentially acting as a conduit of information that undermines strategic uses of ignorance by the oppressed. If students are aware of the dilemma, then they may feel pulled in different directions—as trusted volunteers they feel obligated to report, but having built relationships of trust with clients, they feel obligated to stay silent. Students need guidance in navigating these ethical dilemmas. The next section discusses practices that provide such guidance and help students study their own ignorance.
Practices and Methods Designing a Service-Learning Course Educators can draw on epistemologies of ignorance when designing courses. This requires considering the kinds of ignorance that students may bring to their work and developing ways to challenge false assumptions and missing knowledge. For example, to challenge stereotypes of the poor as unwilling to work, teachers can include texts and interviews with community members to reveal the challenges facing the working poor in the United States. Using epistemologies of ignorance also requires choosing materials to equip students with the necessary ethical tools. If students are likely to face the dilemma of whether to share information that could undermine strategic ignorance, teaching students about the ethics of trust and trustworthiness can give them tools to resolve the dilemmas. For example, Nancy Nyquist Potter’s (2002) How Can I Be Trusted? develops a theory of trustworthiness and presents case studies of volunteers navigating dilemmas in which their relationships of trust pull them in different directions. Teachers and administrators should also think carefully about how courses might threaten practices of strategic ignorance. Faced with pressure to demonstrate the effectiveness of service-learning, educators often encourage their students to present what they have learned in poster sessions, conferences, publications, or public meetings. Educators need to consider carefully whether and how their students should present information they have learned to the broader community. This requires not only planning time to train students in the ethics of confidentiality but also deciding whether it is appropriate for students to present what they have learned. Such decisions should be made in partnership with community partners, including not only service professionals but also the clients and community members. This increases the likelihood that teachers will know which information community members want to control. The institutional review board should also be involved in these decisions. Decisions about how to handle such information can present complex ethical
34–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
dilemmas; working with an epistemology of ignorance encourages ethically responsible educators to wrestle with these problems.
Classroom Exercises Some approaches to service-learning emphasize educating students about their community before they enter the field (Chapdelaine, Ruiz, Warchal, & Wells, 2005). This ignorance-removing approach is often helpful since students may be more effective partners and make fewer oppressive assumptions with such knowledge. But this approach can also give students a false sense of mastery and an arrogant attitude in which the students perceive themselves to be experts prepared to “fix” community members. To avoid these problems, educators can provide exercises that make students aware of their ignorance. In the author’s Ethics of Civic Engagement course, several exercises attempt to accomplish this. First, before the students start their service-learning, the professor shares a personal story of her own past civic engagement. This is an example of the technique of modeling critical thinking advocated by Brookfield (2013). The professor discusses some work she did in her community (e.g., volunteering or a past nonprofit job) and how she now sees that there were many things she was ignorant about then (e.g., how her race and class affected her relationships with community members). She also gives examples of how her ignorance was harmful and how she unlearned her ignorance. The goals of this exercise are (a) to provide the students with examples of the kinds of issues they might be ignorant about and (b) to model the habits of humility and selfcritical reflection. This exercise can scare students a bit— providing a long list of things about which their professor was ignorant, when in a position similar to theirs, makes them fearful that they too are significantly ignorant. However, it is reassuring to see that the professor “came out the other side” from that experience—it shows that it is possible to undo one’s ignorance and make amends for harms one’s ignorance causes. In the second part of this exercise, students generate a list of things they do not know that could affect their service work. This assignment gives students an opportunity to practice humility before they enter the field. It also potentially draws their attention to how their ignorance could cause harm. A second exercise helps students develop skills for addressing their ignorance. Students work in groups to develop three lists of Resources & tools for discovering what I need to know about my service-learning: (1) a list of people who are good resources (e.g., community partners), (2) a list of strategies and habits they can develop (e.g., asking questions and listening), and (3) a list of materials they can use (e.g., volunteer handbooks). Generating lists of people and resources that help them unlearn their own ignorance is empowering to students, and discussing habits they want to develop can diminish student resistance to working on their ignorance.
Finally, Brookfield (2013) provided a detailed four-stage Critical Conversation Protocol for a classroom exercise in which a student “storyteller” describes an event he or she experienced (in service-learning classes, this could be a critical incident from his or her volunteering). In stage 2, the rest of the class acts as “detectives” whose job is to ask questions of the storyteller that help them discover assumptions implicit in the storyteller’s narrative. An “umpire” intervenes if the detectives’ questions involve judgments about the storyteller. The umpire’s role is essential to ensure that the storyteller does not retreat into defensiveness. In stage 3, the detectives share their observations about the assumptions the storyteller has made, and in stage 4, they provide alternative interpretations of the event. This protocol teaches students that the help of others is often necessary for discovering one’s biasing assumptions. It also helps students learn how to engage respectfully in such dialogues. Service-learning courses can fruitfully use these classroom techniques to teach students not only about the specific contours of their own ignorance but also about the process by which one can uncover and remedy one’s ignorance.
Engaging With Student Reflection Reflection is an integral part of service-learning. Unfortunately, some common types of reflection assignments (which pose questions such as: What did you learn? What were the highs and lows of your experience?) simply prompt students to share their emotional reactions rather than engage in sustained self-analysis (Zlotkowski, 2011). Epistemologies of ignorance suggest ways to encourage more rigorous reflection. First, assignments can prompt students to reflect on not only what they learned but also what they might be ignoring, and how their social location shapes their knowledge and ignorance. In addition, teachers can respond to student reflections by asking such questions, thereby creating a fruitful dialogue between student and teacher. For example, one might adopt Zlotkowski’s Three-Part Journal format for reflections, which requires students to write (a) an objective description of what they did at their community visit; (b) a self-critical response to the visit, including their feelings, judgments, and an analysis of why they reacted this way; and (c) a discussion of the visit using class concepts (Zlotkowski, n.d.). This format is useful because distinguishing between an objective description of an event (part (a)) and their own judgments of an event (part (b)) forces students to ask whether what they perceived is really what happened, or instead simply an assumption based on a stereotype. Students often struggle to make this distinction and will place judgments in the section for pure description. This provides the teacher with an opportunity to prompt the students to reflect on whether ignorance influenced their analysis. For example, suppose a student writes the following for part (a) of her journal: “The student I tutor didn’t care enough to do her homework this
5. Epistemologies of Ignorance–•–35
week. Her parents didn’t make her do it either. None of them make school a priority.” The teacher can point out that this description involves judgments about the student and parents that should belong (and be analyzed) in part (b) of the journal. The teacher can also ask: Do you really know that your student did not do the homework because she does not care? Have you talked to her parents about why she did not do it? If the class has already discussed how ignorance is shaped and unlearned, then the teacher can further ask: Why do you think you assume that your student does not care? What social forces might have shaped this assumption? Are there race or class dynamics here? How might you learn whether lack of caring is really the cause? Who could you talk to? Thus, grading reflections with an epistemology of ignorance in mind can help teachers push students to study the contours of their own ignorance.
ignorance is shaped by their social location and their individual choices. Drawing students’ attention to strategic ignorance undermines an oppressive view of service-learning as paternalistic help for passive recipients. This helps students develop important virtues, such as humility. Additionally, students and educators should work together to ensure that the knowledge gained through service-learning is disseminated in ethical ways. In conclusion, teaching servicelearning courses with a focus on ignorance is not only intellectually stimulating but also ethically just.
Notes
Conclusion
1. Of course, the racism behind these White scripts intersects with both sexism and class privilege: Middle-class Whites and White women receive different messages about safety than working-class Whites and White males do. This shows that studying ignorance requires intersectional thinking (Crenshaw, 1991).
Ignorance is not a passive or simple state; it is actively produced by complex social forces. Service-learning is a powerful tool for teaching students about how their
2. Passes were tickets written by slaveholders to permit their slaves to travel outside the plantation. Enslaved people without adequate passes were subject to harassment and capture by slave patrols.
References and Further Readings Bailey, A. (1998). Locating traitorous identities: Toward a view of privilege-cognizant white character. Hypatia, 13(3), 27–42. Bailey, A. (2007). Strategic ignorance. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 77–94). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Batts, V. (2002). Is reconciliation possible? Lessons from combating “modern racism.” In I. T. Douglas (Ed.), Waging reconciliation: God’s mission in a time of globalization and crisis. New York, NY: Church. Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). Christian privilege and the promotion of “secular” and not-so “secular” mainline Christianity in public schooling and the larger society. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(3), 195–210. Boyle-Baise, M. (1999). “As good as it gets?” The impact of philosophical orientations on community-based service learning for multicultural education. The Educational Forum, 63(4), 310–321. Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. Somerset, NJ: Wiley. Butin, D. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapdelaine, A., Ruiz, A., Warchal, J., & Wells, C. (2005). Service-learning code of ethics. Bolton, MA: Anker. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Cross, B. (2005). New racism, reformed teacher education, and the same ole’ oppression. Educational Studies, 38(3), 263–274.
Frye, M. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press. Hayes, E., & Cuban, S. (1997). Border pedagogy: A critical framework for service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1), 72–80. Henry, S. E. (2005). “I can never turn my back on that”: Liminality and the impact of class on service-learning experience. In D. Butin (Ed.), Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions (pp. 3–24). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoagland, S. (2001). Resisting rationality. In N. Tuana & S. Morgen (Eds.), Engendering rationalities (pp. 125–150). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Hoagland, S. (2007). Denying relationality: Epistemology and ethics and ignorance. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 95–118). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Hundleby, C. (2005). The epistemological evaluation of oppositional secrets. Hypatia, 20(4), 44–58. Jones, S., Gilbride-Brown, J., & Gasiorski, A. (2005). Getting inside the “underside” of service-learning: Student resistance and possibilities. In D. Butin (Ed.), Servicelearning in higher education: Critical issues and directions (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Jordan, C., Gust, S., & Scheman, N. (2011). The trustworthiness of research: The paradigm of community-based research. In N. Scheman (Ed.), Shifting ground: Knowledge and reality, transgression and trustworthiness (pp. 170–190). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lugones, M. (2003). Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing coalition against multiple oppressions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
36–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Malewski, E., & Jaramillo, N. E. (Eds.). (2011). Epistemologies of ignorance in education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study (6th ed., pp. 188–192). New York, NY: Worth. Mills, C. (2007). White ignorance. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 13–38). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ortega, M. (2006). Being lovingly, knowingly ignorant: White feminism and women of color. Hypatia, 21(3), 56–74. Peace Corps. (2010). Culture matters: Trainer’s guide. Retrieved from http://collection.peacecorps.gov/cdm/singleitem/ collection/p15105coll3/id/26/rec/21 Pompa, L. (2005). Service-learning as crucible: Reflections on immersion, context, power, and transformation. In D. Butin
(Ed.), Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions (pp. 173–192). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Potter, N. N. (2002). How can I be trusted? New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Sullivan, S., & Tuana, N. (Eds.). (2007). Race and epistemologies of ignorance. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Townley, C. (2006). Toward a revaluation of ignorance. Hypatia, 21(3), 37–55. Zlotkowski, E. (2011). Pedagogy and engagement. In J. Saltmarsh & E. Zlotkowski (Eds.), Higher education and democracy: Essays on service-learning and civic engagement (pp. 95–119). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Zlotkowski, E. (n.d.). Service-learning: Three-part journal entries. Retrieved from http://www.nyit.edu/images/ uploads/2013/career_services/Zlotkowski3PartJournal.pdf
6 AN OVERVIEW OF ACADEMIC COMMUNITYBASED LEARNING APPROACHES OMOBOLADE DELANO-ORIARAN St. Norbert College
M
any K–20 (kindergarten through graduate level) schools are increasingly including communitybased learning in their approach to curriculum design and delivery. Such approaches connect students, faculty, and staff with their communities and allow all involved to intentionally engage while focusing on needs from the perspective of the community as well as on student learning. These different approaches are also referred to as service-learning, civic engagement, communitybased learning, community-engaged learning, community engagement, public scholarship (Giles, 2008), and by a host of other descriptors. The varied terminology and how it is applied is a major focus of this chapter. The application of community-based learning leads to teaching approaches that empower educators to enhance students’ learning. They apply course concepts and theoretical approaches learned within the college classroom to practice by linking this knowledge gained with community needs. When authentically applied, students learn within the community while working in the community. The community at large is also empowered to collaborate with educational institutions (i.e., K–12, undergraduate, and graduate schools), to support students in their learning processes, and to support faculty as they apply this pedagogy. Most importantly, when done well, faculty can connect with surrounding communities and engage in developing, nurturing, and sustaining partnerships. Many faculty have sought partners with whom they can collaborate in support of their students. Partners are frequently discovered within the confines of their own college communities; others are discovered within the rural or urban communities surrounding their institutions. However,
partners selected according to student and community needs can be located across the respective state or even country. Regardless of the location, faculty must infuse this pedagogical approach effectively, know their community partners well, and work toward developing and sustaining authentic partnerships based on mutual respect. This chapter provides a brief overview of communitybased learning by first explaining the varied terminology associated with the concept. The partners and stakeholders that engage in and are affected by this pedagogical practice are discussed. Community settings are described with an emphasis on working with culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The chapter concludes by providing a practical checklist that all faculty practicing academic community-based learning can adopt and apply as a pivotal facet of their respective instruction.
Related Terminology The terms academic community-based learning or academic community-engaged learning are used in this chapter as a means of introducing intentional, structured curricula grounded in teaching approaches that many K–12 schools and institutions of higher education (IHE) are implementing to link their course objectives with community needs. Scholars such as Barbara Jacoby differentiate between community-based learning and community-engaged learning. Jacoby prefers communityengaged learning to reflect learning that happens in the community versus with the community (B. Jacoby, personal communication, September 19, 2014). I have adopted 37
38–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
the use of both terms to reflect learning occurring in the community and with the community. The terms can be awkward; however, this pedagogy and related research continue to evolve. The rationale behind the terms is to emphasize the following factors: • The approach must be, and is, linked with the formal academic curricula of schools, thus the frequent choice of academic in the terminology used. The teaching approach is deeply rooted in the curricula, assisting faculty in linking their instruction to course objectives and community/societal issues. • Students cannot learn with the exclusion of the community and its residents as learning occurs in the community, thus empowering them to be engaged within the community. • Students cannot learn with the exclusion of community issues, and the success of the community is dependent upon academic learning. • The community plays a vital role in the learning process, making it possible for students and faculty to learn from and with the community. • Academic community-based learning and academic community-engaged learning encompass all curriculumbased pedagogies that are infused with community engagement.
The following terms are used interchangeably, albeit coined differently: civic engagement, SL, academic SL, community, community-based learning, communityengaged learning, community-based education, and community service. With great sensitivity to, and respect for, this pedagogical approach, the author acknowledges, with others (Thomson, Smith-Tolken, Naidoo, & Bringle, 2011), that these terms have varied meanings and applications within both the United States and international contexts. For example, Thomson et al. (2011) interpreted community engagement within the United States as community involvement and asserted that community involvement is more of an “umbrella term” involving both formal and informal links to the community. However, civic engagement reflects students and faculty directly engaging with the community and with a focus on citizenship. For example, in the Republic of South Africa, community engagement refers to a reciprocal, interactive, and equal relationship between IHEs and the community, while civic engagement denotes an emphasis on human-rights issues. Thomson et al. (2011) reported that, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, “community engagement is narrowly defined,” with faculty working informally with their communities, while civic engagement is “largely irrelevant in [the] context of a failed state” (p. 219). Therefore, the need is clear for a synopsis of this terminology. This chapter fills that need within the boundaries of the United States, while other chapters describe the manner in which the terms are applied within other national contexts.
Civic Engagement Existing literature has described civic engagement as civic leadership, community development, political and public involvement, and social-justice activism (Droege & Ferrari, 2012; Jacoby, 2009; The Research University of Civic Engagement Network, 2010). Scholars (Klak & Mullaney, 2013) engaging in community engagement abroad prefer to refer to their work as international civic engagement. Regardless of the national or international context of the partnership, it involves members actively collaborating to create positive change within communities (Jacoby, 2009). Jacoby (2009) asserted that it is an inclusive approach that is beyond political participation. Ehrlich noted that it means working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes. (as cited in O’Connor, 2006, p. 52)
Some researchers have advanced SL as a form, component, or manifestation of civic engagement, while others have used the terms interchangeably (Bringle & Hatcher, 2009; d’Arlach, Sánchez, & Feuer, 2009; Stoecker & Beckman, 2010). Still other scholars (Finley, 2011; Klak & Mullaney, 2013) have posited clear distinctions. For example, Finley (2011) questioned whether SL really is civic engagement and opined that it is beyond community engagement and includes students engaging “in the skills, values, and knowledge development that educate them to be better citizens” (p. 1).
Service-Learning SL, academic SL, and community SL (Ohn & Wade, 2009) are accurately interchangeable and represent an instructional approach that is credit bearing and linking curriculum goals with intentional learning within the community. This pedagogy engages students in structured community work under effective instructional guidance and supervision (Thomson et al., 2011) and empowers them to serve to learn or learn to serve (Steinberg, Bringle, & Williams, 2010). Community needs are met from the perspectives of the community. Direct or indirect community involvement includes critical, structured reflection and varies in duration from multiple weeks to a semester, depending upon the community, instructor, and learning goals. According to the Canadian Alliance for Community Service-Learning, use of the term community in conjunction with the term SL is “an educational approach that integrates service in the community with intentional learning activities. Within effective CSL [community SL] efforts, members of both educational institutions and community organizations work toward outcomes that are
6. An Overview of Academic Community-Based Learning Approaches–•–39
mutually beneficial” (as cited in Gemmel & Clayton, 2009, p. 1). Gemmel and Clayton (2009) cited the Bringle, Hatcher, and McIntosh definition of SL, which reflected the interchangeable nature of this term with community SL. When using the term service-learning, whether referring to academic, community, or other pedagogy, the hyphen in the term is critically placed. The hyphen emphasizes the symbiotic relationship, equal balance, weight, and value between service and learning, as well as the importance as it relates to curriculum goals, meaning that service and learning complement each other as opposed to one dominating the other (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Ngai, Cheung, Ngai, & Chan, 2009). Sigmon (1994) provided a detailed typology that further clarifies the differentiation between these compounded terms and the implications when used together.
Community-Based Learning The term community-based learning reflects a philosophical approach to community engagement, which commonly encompasses all experiential approaches that connect curriculum activities and objectives with community engagement and involvement (Johns Hopkins Center for Social Concern, n.d.). Researchers subscribing to the community-based learning or community-based education phraseology and methods use these terms to demonstrate the value and strength of the community in the learning process. The terms emphasize the significance of collaborative and collective learning (Fischer, Rohde, & Wulf, 2007) through relationships with the perspective of the community as an equal partner possessing strengths and assets of benefit to IHEs. The community as an active, equal partner means that, as a collective, the community is the best judge of local needs and decides how they can be optimally met. All partners learn and benefit. Clark University (n.d.) in Worcester, Massachusetts, implements community-based learning because “it [the university] highlights [a] longstanding commitment to the neighboring community and because it can be easily paired with its counterpart, community-based research” (p. 2). Subscribing to, and applying, terminology with an emphasis on community counters the notion that K–20 partners are the givers or “saviors of the day.” However, Bringle and Hatcher (2009) noted that SL is different from community-based learning because the former includes internships, cooperative education, field placements, and practicums. Community-based learning is viewed as yet another practice-based approach of education institutions.
Critical Service-Learning Critical service-learning is recommended for building collaboration among culturally and linguistically diverse people and communities via a social-justice perspective.
This approach empowers all partners to engage in critical examination as they seek to address the institutional inequities and issues pervading communities. It emphasizes a social-justice approach to SL (Mitchell, 2007) and thrives on action; critical consciousness; change agents; identifying, challenging, and changing the status quo and oppressive societal institutions; equal decision making between partners; collaborative engagement; and critical socialjustice awareness (Mitchell, 2008; Porfilio & Hickman, 2011; Verjee, 2010). It shifts from the traditional types of community engagement to engage students and faculty as critical thinkers with an emphasis on a social-justice or transformational paradigm (Verjee, 2010). Mitchell (2007) illustrated how critical SL differs from the traditional SL approach by challenging and empowering students. Within the resultant learning environment, faculty do not ask questions such as “How can we help ‘these people?”; instead, they ask, “Why are conditions this way?” (p. 102).
Community Service Community service is a co-curriculum approach that is prevalent within K–20 schools and often confused with SL or community SL. However, the two approaches are very distinct in their paths toward community engagement. In higher education, community service refers to student engagement in activities not necessarily associated with curriculum goals, learning objectives, or the application or acquisition of skills. According to Furco (1996), the focus is on the service and benefits extended to beneficiaries, which he asserted implies “altruism and charity” (p. 11). Doing for the community, as opposed to doing with the community, is emphasized with such service. Examples common to many institutions include hosting annual food drives, tutoring K–12 students, volunteering at a shelter, and participating in a “Make-A-Difference Day” activity. In many of these cases, structured critical reflection, supervision, or accountability for curriculum learning outcomes are absent, and student learning is clearly not a major focus. Given the context and diversity of this volume, this chapter introduces readers to pedagogical methods implemented by colleagues across the globe. The contribution of all the chapters within this sourcebook is rooted in intentional, structured, and curriculum-based approaches.
Partners The terminology used to refer to all participants of academic community-based learning reflects the interaction, relationship, decision-making style, collaborative nature, and closeness of this instructional approach. The terms for all involved range from partners, partnering groups, and collaborators to stakeholders (Klak & Mullaney, 2013). Diversity is a common factor within all partner groups, meaning that members may or may not present varied or
40–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
similar perspectives and needs. For example, within K–20 schools, the students, faculty, administrators, and staff comprise the academic community, which Vickers, Harris, and McCarthy (2004) presented in a triad diagram to effectively illustrate diversity within communities. A community at-large can comprise the residents and agencies within local, state, or global communities (Jacoby, 2003). Within these communities, groups based on race, age, cultural or sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, and gender emerge with regional and geographic similarities and differences. Consequently, any attempt to homogenize these groups would serve only to marginalize them. As partners or stakeholders, all participants have an equal stake in the community engagement. Their partnership implies that decision making is cooperative and collaborative, and if authentically applied, the SL “potential is maximized when it positions students, faculty, and community members as co-learners, coeducators, and cogenerators of knowledge” (Felten & Clayton, 2011, p. 82). The partnership of the stakeholders is characterized by authenticity; reciprocity (i.e., mutual and equal respect); and a closeness in equity and integrity, which are essential for success in reaping the benefits of SL (Jacoby, 2003).
Authenticity Developing and nurturing authentic partnerships is key to successful community engagement. The partnership is developed, nurtured, and sustained based on mutual goals and respect. The partnership is authentic and genuine when there is a critical and transparent focus on investing in the needs of partners. It is rooted in personal relationships, genuine trust, honesty, respect, patience, and open communication. A genuine democratic partnership must be grounded in authenticity with all stakeholders having a shared vision, knowledge of the shared plans and agenda, clear values, concrete benefits, an interpersonal relationship rooted in trust and mutual respect, equal opportunity for dialogue, and consistent opportunity for evaluation (Jacoby, 2003).
Reciprocity Reciprocity involves a collaborative, cooperative, and shared partnership between schools and the community with all partners interdependent, participating equally, sharing responsibilities, and making decisions throughout the application of a pedagogical approach. Vickers et al. (2004) noted that all partners are interdependent, with their reciprocity based on a foundation of no hierarchical ties, which is an essential key to any good community-engagement pedagogical practice. According to Kendall (as cited in Henry & Breyfogle, 2006), such practice involves the exchange of both giving and receiving between the “server” and the person or group “being served.” All parties in service learning are learners and help determine what is to be learned. . . . Such a service-learning exchange avoids the
traditionally paternalistic, one-way approach to service in which one person or group has resources which [sic] they share “charitably” or “voluntarily” with a person or group that [sic] lacks resources. (p. 27)
Enos and Morton (2003) make a distinction between two types of reciprocity. Although both traditional and enriched reciprocity are characterized by six qualities— goal/objective, perception of power, partner identity, boundaries, outcomes, and scope of commitment (as cited in Henry & Breyfogle, 2006), the traditional emphasizes greater individuality within all qualities compared with the enriched, which emphasizes more of a collective approach to the six qualities. Enriched reciprocity is preferred because all partners collectively collaborate and cooperate to accomplish shared goals based upon shared decision making.
Closeness, Equity, and Integrity Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, and Morrison (2010) made a concerted effort to distinguish between the terms relationship and partnership. They emphasized that these two terms must not be used interchangeably, explaining that relationship is more informal on a short-time basis and used to refer to the interaction between individuals, while partnership is more formal and long-term in nature (p. 5). Bringle, Clayton, and Price (2009) defined partnership in a manner similar to the Clayton et al. (2010) description; however, they applied the following “three particular qualities: closeness, equity, and integrity” (p. 3). Bringle et al. (2009) postulated that the relationships transform into partnerships as their interaction grows into closeness based on the quality of the existing equity and integrity. Closeness is accomplished by partners collaborating on the decisionmaking process; communicating regularly; contributing and sharing resources; respecting, listening to, and trusting each other; and openly discussing plans, roles, and logistics (Bosma et al., 2010; Karasik & Wallingford, 2007). Because the community is an extension of the classroom, faculty must be visible, present on a consistent basis, and actively engaged within the community because this enhances the closeness between partners and sustains the partnership. Equity ensures fairness, a balance of power, and equal roles and resources. Partners must not feel underutilized, incapable, overbenefited, or underbenefited (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002) as it might hinder accomplishing overall goals and objectives. Integrity is a core value to acquire, possess, apply, and demonstrate in any partnership. All partners must maintain high integrity as they interact and interrelate. Honest transparency during decision making; resource sharing; and assessing mutual needs, goals, and learning outcomes are all critical. It is equally important for all participants engaging in a partnership to represent their organizations with high integrity and without compromising the standards, missions, or values of their institutions. Authenticity, reciprocity, closeness, equity, and integrity are elements of partnerships that
6. An Overview of Academic Community-Based Learning Approaches–•–41
foreshadow the work of Jacoby (2003), who stated, “Service-learning must be grounded in a network, or web of authentic, democratic, reciprocal partnerships” (p. 6). However, these elements are not to be considered the only elements essential to developing solid relationships toward sustainable partnerships.
Diverse Community Settings Communities comprise residents seeking the services of schools, and community agencies often facilitate the community-engagement process. Many IHEs engage in partnerships with local communities, while others engage with partners located abroad (i.e., international SL and international civic engagement). Regardless of the learning community, it is important to relate, perceive, and engage with communities from a perspective of their strengths; assets; and diversity of cultures, values, needs, and preferences. This chapter emphasizes the engagement in racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse communities because the United States, as well as the contemporary global society, “mirrors” such diversity. Many schools are ensuring their students are prepared and equipped with the attitudes, dispositions, knowledge, and skills to succeed in the workplace of a diverse society. This translates into many faculty engaging in partnerships with agencies and neighborhoods that are predominantly African American, Hispanic (also known as Latina/o), Native American/American Indian, and Asian. These populations, within the context of the United States, have been considered historically underrepresented and are presently underserved. They continue to struggle for their economic, social, and political rights and for equality. A cursory search for related literature indicated a preponderance of articles that were focused on SL within diverse communities (see Table 6.1). As IHEs
Search entry
Results (No. of publications)
Service-learning and diversity
37,100
Service-learning and multiculturalism
15,200
Service-learning and minorities
18,600
Service-learning in urban communities
25,000
Service-learning in diverse communities
34,900
Service-learning in cultural communities
40,100
Service-learning and cultural competency 20,400 Service-learning and cultural competence 22,100 Table 6.1
Literature Search
work with such communities, they must be culturally competent to engage in such work.
Foundations of Cultural Competency Since the 2000 U.S. census that reflected increases in the racial and linguistic diversity of American populations, the need to integrate cultural competency into aspects of academic curricula has proportionately increased (Wehling, 2008). Cultural competence basically equates to the ability to understand and communicate with people who are different from you. Partners from K–20 institutions must have the ability, knowledge, and skill to effectively work with culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Cultural competency is a continuous learning process that translates into “acquiring an awareness of, and sensitivity to, cultural diversity and demonstrating interpersonal, academic, and pedagogical skills that enable [faculty, staff, and students] to understand, appreciate, and accept such diversity” while working with community members (Delano-Oriaran, 2012, p. 403). Within this volume, cultural competency is generally understood as rooted in the elements of intracultural, intercultural, cross-cultural, and multicultural knowledge and communication skill. It is based on the following underlying principles (Delano-Oriaran 2012; United Church of Canada, 2011): • Faculty and staff must engage in a critical evaluation of their own racial identity and its impact on students and other individuals in their lives. • Faculty and staff must support students as they develop an understanding of the importance and value of racialidentity theories and their application to self, others, and society as a whole. • Faculty and staff must support students as they develop an understanding of the role whiteness plays in American society, as well as the associated privileges. • Faculty and staff must support students in the process of acknowledging, understanding, accepting, and appreciating cultural pluralism. • Faculty and staff must create intentional cross-cultural opportunities based on a respect for self and students. • Faculty and staff must provide ongoing student opportunities to address and challenge power differentials and imbalance among and between cultural groups. • Faculty and staff must support students in the process of becoming conscious of social injustice within American society. • Faculty and staff must support students in challenging all forms of discrimination and social injustice. • Faculty and staff must emphasize the value and importance of maintaining an open mind and acceptance of cultural diversity rather than simply tolerance.
Cultural Competency and Service-Learning Faculty and staff often engage students in SL opportunities involving diverse communities with the goal of developing a sensitive and accepting mindset within their
42–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
students toward various cultures (i.e., cultural competence). However, some have completed their community engagement with many stereotypes reinforced. Some faculty, staff, and students have entered diverse communities perceiving them as deficit based (i.e., weak and problem infested) rather than asset based (i.e., strong, with many opportunities and talented residents; Delano-Oriaran, 2012, 2014). This could be avoided if all K–20 partners were culturally competent and equipped with knowledge, skills, and dispositions conducive to diverse cultures. Therefore, faculty members and staff must adequately prepare themselves and their students for diverse communities, just as community partners must also be prepared for K–20 partners.
Community Engagement I developed an SL framework designed to help preservice teachers engage in SL activities that are culturally authentic (Delano-Oriaran, 2012). This framework is now adapted for application in other academic fields. It consists of several elements pertinent to developing cultural competency: an investment in community needs, preparation and planning, community engagement and empowerment, curricula infusion of multicultural education, bridging theory and practice, recognition and celebration, and reflection and evaluation. These seven elements emphasize student engagement in the following structured activities: • • • •
Examining multiculturalism and its role in society Conducting critical self-reflection on racial identity Examining whiteness and societal privilege Acknowledging and analyzing the social inequities that affect historically underrepresented and presently underserved population groups
• Challenging institutional issues that reproduce and reinforce inequities and exploring methods toward positive change • Accepting opportunities to become agents of change
The described SL framework emphasizes consideration to the community in all decision making, from the planning stage through implementation and evaluation; addressing community needs from the perspectives of the community; infusing the cultural needs of the community (i.e., demographics, values, beliefs, lifestyles, holidays, and celebrations) into all aspects of community engagement; and ensuring that K–20 partners are engaging in work with the community and not for the community. The intent of infusing these elements into the framework is to empower all involved to become equal partners operating from an asset-based perspective.
Learning-Framework Checklist As K–20 partners enter the community, those filling supervisory roles (i.e., faculty and staff) must partner with students to work within the community to authentically apply community-based learning methods that engage and empower all involved. A checklist in Table 6.2 is provided with a series of questions to better support faculty and staff from various academic fields engaged in academic community-based learning. Caution is extended to note that this checklist is not the end product. It is evolving, as is society, with ongoing research. The checklist provided in Table 6.2 is intended to be used as a beginning tool for those engaged in work with culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The ultimate goal is for all items to be answered in the affirmative, ensuring that community engagement is authentic and
Criteria 1. Has the faculty and staff engaged in research on the types of SL, especially cross-cultural SL and critical SL? 2. Does the faculty and staff understand the meaning of SL and its benefits for all partners? 3. Are course objectives aligned with SL goals, and do these objectives carry equal significance? 4. Did faculty and staff integrate issues relating to diversity and social justice into the syllabi? 5. Do the K–20 supervising personnel (i.e., faculty and staff) conduct course preparation on the self-awareness of racial identity? 6. Do students understand the meaning of SL and its benefits for all partners? 7. Did faculty and staff support students in engaging in research on the community (i.e., demographics, the diversity of residents, social issues, community organization, and other subtopics)?
Yes
No
N/A
6. An Overview of Academic Community-Based Learning Approaches–•–43
8. Do K–20 students receive preparation in intracultural, intercultural, multicultural, and cross-cultural education and social-justice curriculum methods? 9. Do all K–20 partners receive preparation on cultural bias, sensitivity, and diversity? 11. Are K–20 partners proficient in the language(s) informally and formally used by community residents? 12. Is the community need (i.e., the service focus) determined by the community and community organization? 13. Are all partners (i.e., students, teachers, community members, and college faculty) equally involved in the planning and implementation of the service? 14. If working through a community agency, does the agency have long-standing and credible roots within the community? 15. Is there a plan outlining how students can link theory and content learned within the classroom to community issues? 16. Have K–20 partners participated in orientation with the community agency and residents prior to work within the community? 17. Are students applying the theories and content acquired within the classroom setting to community issues? 18. Are there opportunities for all partners to celebrate their accomplishments at the culmination of the community service? 19. Are there opportunities for students to have structured, formal, and informal critical preflection on an ongoing basis regarding the process, impact, and benefit of service and its relationship to course learning outcomes? 20. Are there opportunities for the community to have structured, formal, and informal critical preflection on an ongoing basis regarding the process, impact, and benefit of service and its relationship to the IHE? 21. Are there opportunities for students to have structured, formal, and informal critical reflection on an ongoing basis regarding the process, impact, and benefit of service and its relationship to course learning outcomes? 22. Are there opportunities for the community to have structured, formal, and informal critical reflection on an ongoing basis regarding the process, impact, and benefit of service and its relationship to course learning outcomes? 23. Are there opportunities for faculty and staff to have structured, formal, and informal critical preflection and reflection on an ongoing basis regarding the process, impact, and benefit of community engagement? Table 6.2
Service-Learning Framework Checklist
Notes: An “X” is placed in one of the three final columns for each item. N/A = not applicable; SL = service-learning.
respectful. It is highly recommended that K–20 faculty and staff work with their community partners to modify or remove questions not pertinent to their processes. The most important factor is the development of a respectful relationship, rooted in respect for various cultures, people, and communities.
Conclusion This chapter is intended to provide an overview of the fundamentals associated with academic community-based learning. It is written as an introduction to the field of community engagement; consequently, multiple academic
44–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
sources are cited. Another aim was to contribute to the existing body of literature presented by others who are passionate about learning from the community. The need for
additional research on critical cross-cultural and intercultural SL toward this same end is clear (McKay, 2010; Mitchell, 2007; Rice & Pollack, 2000; Rosenberger, 2000).
References and Further Readings
Fischer, G., Rohde, M., & Wulf, V. (2007). Community-based learning: The core competency of residential, researchbased universities. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 9–40. Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In Introduction to service-learning toolkit: Readings and resources for faculty (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Retrieved from https:// www.urmia.org/library/docs/regional/2008_northeast/ Service_Learning_Balanced_Approach.pdf Gemmel, L. J., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). A comprehensive framework for community service-learning in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Alliance for Community Service-Learning. Retrieved from http:// scratch.stage.esolutionsgroup.ca/files/A%20Comprehensive %20Framework%20for%20CSL.pdf Giles, D. E. (2008). Understanding an emerging field of scholarship: Toward a research agenda for engaged, public scholarship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(2), 97–108. Henry, S. E., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2006). Toward a new framework of server and served: De (and re) constructing reciprocity in service-learning pedagogy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 27–35. Jacoby, B. (2003). Fundamentals of service-learning partnerships. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 1–19). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Johns Hopkins Center for Social Concern. (n.d.). Community based learning. Retrieved from http://www.jhu.edu/csc/cbl .shtml Karasik, R. J., & Wallingford, M. S. (2007). Finding community: Developing and maintaining effective intergenerational service-learning partnerships. Educational Gerontology, 33(9), 775–793. doi:10.1080/03601270701498475 Klak, T., & Mullaney, E. G. (2013). Levels and networks in community partnerships. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research & Engagement, 6(1), 61–21. McKay, C. (2010). Critical service learning: A school social work intervention. Children & Schools, 32(1), 5–13. Mitchell, T. D. (2007). Critical service-learning as social justice education: A case study of the citizen scholars program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 101–112. doi:10 .1080/10665680701228797 Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. Ngai, S., Cheung, C., Ngai, N., & Chan, K. (2009). Building reciprocal partnerships for service-learning: The experiences of Hong Kong secondary school teachers.
Bosma, L. M., Sieving, R. E., Ericson, A., Russ, P., Cavender, L., & Bonine, M. (2010). Elements for successful collaboration between K–8 school, community agency, and university partners: The lead peace partnership. Journal of School Health, 80(10), 501–507. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00534.x Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P. H., & Price, M. (2009). Partnerships in service learning and civic engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of Service Learning & Civic Engagement, 1(1), 1–20. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus–community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2009). Innovative practices in service-learning and curricular engagement. New Directions For Higher Education, 147, 37–46. doi:10.1002/he.356 Clark University. (n.d.). Community-based learning & research. Retrieved from https://www.clarku.edu/community/pdfs/ Part%20II%20BASICS.pdf Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., Senor, B., Huq, J., & Morrison, M. (2010). Differentiating and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitative, transactional, or transformational. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 5–21. 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. Delano-Oriaran, O. (2012). Infusing Umoja, an authentic and culturally engaging service-learning model, into multicultural education. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 403–414. Delano-Oriaran, O. (2014). Engaging pre-service teachers in diverse communities through service-learning: A practical guide for application. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(2), 186–188. Droege, J. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (2012). Toward a new measure for faith and civic engagement: Exploring the structure of the FACE Scale. Christian Higher Education, 11(3), 146–157. doi:10.1080/15363751003780852 Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus-community partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.). Building partnerships for servicelearning (pp. 20-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where is the learning in servicelearning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Felten, P., & Clayton, P. H. (2011, Winter). Service-learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 75–84. doi:10.1002/tl.470 Finley, A. (2011). Civic learning and democratic engagements: A review of the literature on civic engagement in postsecondary education. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/ civic_learning/crucible/documents/LiteratureReview.pdf
6. An Overview of Academic Community-Based Learning Approaches–•–45 Child & Youth Services, 31(3/4), 170–187. doi:10.1080/014 5935X.2009.524483 O’Connor, J. S. (2006). Civic engagement in higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(5), 52–58. Ohn, J. D., & Wade, R. (2009). Community service-learning as a group inquiry project: Elementary and middle school CiviConnections teachers’ practices of integrating historical inquiry in community service-learning. Social Studies, 100(5), 200–211. Porfilio, B. J., & Hickman, H. (2011). Critical service-learning as revolutionary pedagogy: A project of student agency in action. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. The Research University of Civic Engagement Network. (2010). Statement of mission, purpose and goals. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ TRUCEN-Mission-Visions-Goals-5-11-10.pdf Rice, K., & Pollack, S. (2000). Developing a critical pedagogy of service learning: Preparing self-reflective, culturally aware, and responsive community participants. In C. R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 115–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service learning. In C. R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 23–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sigmon, R. (1994). Linking service with learning in liberal arts education. Washington, DC: Council for Independent
Colleges. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED446685.pdf Steinberg, K. S., Bringle, R. G., & Williams, M. J. (2010). Service-learning research primer. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearing House. Stoecker, R., & Beckman, M. (2010). Making higher education civic engagement matter in the community. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ Making-Higher-Ed-Work.pdf Thomson, A., Smith-Tolken, A., Naidoo, A., & Bringle, R. (2011). Service learning and community engagement: A comparison of three national contexts. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 214–237. doi:10.1007/s11266-010-9133-9 United Church of Canada. (2011). Defining multicultural, crosscultural and intercultural. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The United Church of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.unitedchurch.ca/files/intercultural/multicultural-crossculturalintercultural.pdf Verjee, B. (2010). Service-learning: Charity-based or transformative? Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 4(2), 1–13. Vickers, M., Harris, C., & McCarthy, F. (2004). University community engagement: Exploring service learning options within the practicum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(2), 129–141. Wehling, S. (2008). Cross-cultural competency through servicelearning. Journal of Community Practice, 16(3), 293–315. doi:10.1080/10705420802255080
7 REDEFINING SERVICE-LEARNING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOCIAL CHANGE WITHIN EDUCATION HODA FARAHMANDPOUR
ILYA SHODJAEE-ZRUDLO
University of Toronto
University of Montréal
P
ublic education is becoming increasingly commercialized and, in the view of many, is drifting away from social welfare and toward private gain and corporate interests. Service-learning programs have the potential to orient the learning experience to place public welfare at the center of inquiry and engage students in consideration of others, thereby addressing a growing need for education to contribute to constructive change. Meaningful action to improve one’s community becomes the means by which students develop their talents and capacities. This chapter examines an empowering and transformative approach to service-learning and its implications for public education. To begin, we offer a cursory examination of the origins of service-learning, the experience of the 20th century in program implementation, and current conceptions of its purpose. We then explore factors that limit the ability of service-learning to facilitate social change, such as the role of, and impact on, the communities being served, and conceptions of the role of youths in society. Finally, we suggest a reconceptualization of service as twofold in purpose by examining the organic relationship between self and society, and by exploring implications for the implementation of service-learning programs within the educational system.
The History and Philosophy of Service-Learning Many authors associate service-learning with John Dewey (1938), who sought a resolution to the tension between
individualism and commitment to one’s community in the context of education. Dewey suggested establishing an intimate connection between the educational system and the moral empowerment of young people aimed explicitly at community transformation (Kraft, 1996). This view stands in contrast with a conception of education that values competition among students for economic advantage. In the ensuing years, various state projects aimed at education and community development were planned and executed. Service-learning accelerated in the 1970s, with panels, committees, commissions, and institutes that produced a plethora of reports on the subject of education and service. The decades that followed were characterized by haphazard action, achievements, and setbacks, which contributed to the discourse and accumulating lessons learned. Some authors have described the development of this field as a grassroots movement, whose main contributors are teachers who, with precious few resources, contribute to the growing body of insights concerning the effectiveness of service-learning programs (Kraft, 1996). What emerged from these decades was a general consensus that service-learning involves providing students with opportunities to become involved in structured experiences that respond to community needs, incorporate reflection, relate to some form of curriculum, and foster an orientation toward the welfare of others (Billig, 2000). Of course, one’s conception of service-learning, embedded in a broader philosophical framework, influences how service-learning is demarcated and applied. In other words, a variety of definitions lead to even greater variety in program implementation. 47
48–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Despite the ongoing debate as to what service-learning actually entails, much research is being conducted within the relatively broad definition articulated earlier. Common questions include how service contributes to intellectual, psychological, social, moral, and career development (Billig, 2000); what kinds of service opportunities should be provided for students and how they should be structured; and how to create occasions for reflection on experience (Ash & Clayton, 2009). The next section explores how service-learning has impacted communities and students and how it examines some of the key issues that can enable service-learning programs to better train and prepare students to address issues of public welfare.
Current Issues and Controversies of Service-Learning Research finds mixed results regarding the efficacy of service-learning programs; just as many reports show negligible or negative effects as show positive effects. For example, a great deal of research literature cites individual development in the following areas: identity development, enhanced political and social awareness; enhanced social responsibility; reduction in risk factors such as course failure and school dropout; and, finally, academic achievement (Billig, 2000; Warren, 2012). Other studies report negligible impacts of service-learning programs on the individual (McLellan & Youniss, 2003) and often completely ignore community perspectives (Sandy & Holland, 2006). A further area of research highlights the potential pitfalls of service-learning programs, such as apathy, cynicism, hopelessness, prejudice, fear, and other attitudes that are incongruent with the attitudes service-learning is meant to promote (Coles, 1994; Seider, 2008). Several factors account for these inconsistent findings. First, the range in purpose and practice of service-learning has resulted in a diversity of evaluation that amounts to a lack of consistent evidence (Kraft, 1996). Billig (2000), for example, stated that if a number of program design characteristics necessary to shape impact—such as student responsibility, direct contact with service recipients, and student choice—are compromised, then the extent to which students and communities benefit is limited. Thus, differences in program implementation will yield differences in results. Limitations in program evaluation, however, do little to address challenges related to prevalent cultural conceptions of the individual, the community, and youth. As mentioned in the previous section, certain fundamental conceptions can profoundly shape program implementation. Two interrelated points are worth examining in this regard. The first is whether service opportunities are focused on the needs of a community. If the focus of service-learning programs leans in the direction of the individual learner—which naturally happens within a
broader institutional environment characterized by liberal individualism—then the benefits accrued by the community may be compromised and even the extent to which the individual develops can be limited (Coles, 1994). This somewhat counterintuitive conclusion—that one harms the learning by focusing too much on the learner—has implications for our conception of service-learning, some of which will be explored next. The field of service-learning is often critiqued for largely ignoring the impact of service programs on communities and the ways in which this aspect might influence the implementation of such programs. There seems to be marginal or no emphasis on the potential long-term impacts on the broader community, and the community’s perspective in the development of projects is commonly neglected (Sandy & Holland, 2006). As a result of the focus on the learner, service-learning misses an opportunity to harness the potential of service to facilitate social change. Failing to recognize the community as a protagonist in this process of social transformation can exacerbate a sense of otherness in the learner and foster a “charity” rather than a “doing with” orientation (Mitchell, 2008). In response to these critiques, approaches such as community service-learning or critical service-learning (Mitchell, 2008) contrast with a type of service-learning that focuses on the individual as the primary unit of analysis. For example, critical service-learning seeks to redistribute power and to promote authentic relationships between individuals, defined by reciprocity and interdependence, to work toward the amelioration of social conditions (Mitchell, 2008). These approaches strive to avoid unidirectional relationships that can perpetuate existing forms of injustice and a sense of paternalism that inhibits capacity building and collaboration; they also seek to transcend the inclination to emphasize individual edification. Part of what accounts for the lack of emphasis on the community is that service is situated within a cultural context that defines our relationships with others in a particular way. Karlberg (2005) suggested that the true nature of service-learning runs counter to our individualistic and competitive culture. The education system itself plays a large role in reinforcing a culture of contest and competition. Individualism causes us to focus more on the learning component of service-learning, thus obscuring the fundamental purpose of service, which, arguably, should not be undertaken for personal advancement, at least not at the level of primary motivation. He argued that service-learning should be redefined as a pedagogy that aims to cultivate an orientation toward the welfare of others, characterized by mutual interdependence rather than competitive individualism. While this definition has always been present in the service-learning literature, Karlberg’s reasoning points to some potential internal inconsistencies within our very conception of service-learning. The second point relates to whether young people are perceived as capable agents of social change and progress, and how Western cultural conceptions of young people’s
7. Redefining Service-Learning for the Purpose of Social Change Within Education–•–49
role in society can limit the impact of service-learning on communities. Kurth-Schai (1988) explained that the role of youths in Western society fails to recognize their capacities to take meaningful action in the world, stating that “youth are confronted with confusing and contradictory patterns of protection and pressure, with conflicting perceptions of their abilities and inadequacies, rendering their social presence inconsequential and their social power invisible” (p. 116). Failing to recognize the social potential of childhood and adolescence promotes a conception of the period of youth defined as a time of preparation, primarily through book learning and academic achievement, where young people are not expected to contribute to the welfare of the family or community. Students’ primary responsibility becomes academic success for individual gain; thus, contemporary expectations of young people discourage them from contributing to society (Kurth-Schai, 1988). The irony is that service-learning aims to bridge the gap between the individual and the community, but if acts of service are carried out within communities with the sole intention of enhancing academic achievement, then they can contradict that purpose. Freeing service-learning programs from their academic bubble can endow them with the power to transform communities by recognizing the capacity of youths to contribute to society. Limiting the ability of students to engage fully in community processes ultimately limits their own individual development, with many examples of young people citing a negative experience with such programs because of their lack of ability to do something meaningful (Seider, 2008). However, approaches such as “positive youth development” are aimed at contributing to a conception of youths that avoids perceiving them as bundles of problems, needs, or inherently deficient, and literature that posits that youths can be “competent community builders” with the potential to contribute to social change (Checkoway et al., 2003; Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005). Without a conviction that youths can rise above the negative influence of prevalent social forces, service-learning programs might simply be viewed as yet another “service” for youths, fulfilling one of their many needs and thus “keeping them off the street.” Although such programs may, indeed, “keep them off the street,” these statements hardly inspire confidence in a generation to act.
Reconceptualizing Service as Twofold in Purpose What is clear from the preceding sections is that our conception of service-learning must be reexamined to go beyond raising the test scores of certain students. Furthermore, it must also transcend that of individual young people undertaking isolated acts of kindness that make them feel good about themselves. Rather, we argue that an understanding of the inseparable relationship
between individual and community transformation must lie at the heart of a broader conception of service. This conception helps shape service-learning programs that are aimed at community development and in which youths develop their capacities. Service-learning authors are not in agreement with regard to how to transcend a conception of service-learning that involves isolate acts of a charitable nature (Morton, 1995). For example, Seider (2008) advocated a more critical, social change approach. Although this approach enhances understanding and analytic skills by raising students’ consciousness of the unjust nature of the structures of society, it may, as Seider himself noted, leave students cynical or even fearful of change, or it might obscure the role that students may play in perpetuating, albeit unintentionally, injustices of all kinds. The previous paragraph illustrates the tension that exists between nonstructural, individual learner-focused service-learning programs and more radical, community and structural change-focused programs that is systemic to the field of service-learning (Morton, 1995). We suggest that this tension between individual-learner focused and community-focused programs is a false dichotomy that limits the impact of service-learning programs on both the individual and the community. Rather than placing them in opposition to one another, we argue that a more powerful conception of service-learning could be built on an understanding of the inextricable connection between individual and structural change. Stetsenko (2008) articulated a philosophically robust conception of the relationship between service, the development of the individual and society, and education: “Collaborative and purposeful transformation of the world is the core of human nature and the principled grounding for learning and development” (p. 474). She drew our attention to a mode of thinking where the individual and society are organically related, and she situated the dynamic, related processes of learning and development at the nexus of the two. Furthermore, she drew on Dewey in making these connections, linking the philosophical origins of service-learning to more recent trends in thought. In this way, service is conceptualized as meeting a twofold purpose inherent in human nature: individual and social transformation. Here, learning becomes the parallel process that must accompany the desired transformation, for such a transformation requires the generation of new knowledge. Involving youths in service, thus conceived, is a potent means for advancing both their development and the development of their communities. While retaining a vision of service that has the power not only to change but also to transform communities, it is clear that acts of service of young people will (and should) start small. These humble beginnings can be misleading because youths are developing key capacities as they act on the world, understand its impact through reflection, and thus refine their action.
50–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
One example of youths contributing meaningfully to the development of their community, and in doing so developing essential capabilities, took place in Maine. A group of young people attending a small high school, motivated by a desire to improve their small coastal community, initiated several interrelated projects aimed at revitalizing the struggling fishing business. They raised trout, salmon, mussels, and sea urchins, with the aim of identifying a profitable product for export. They also conducted experiments to learn how to raise these sea animals and formed a baitfish business in response to a local need. Moreover, they created a short documentary as a contribution to the local debate over the precarious future of the local marina (Cervone, 2010). This series of projects not only contributed decisively to the development of this local community but also became the arena in which young people developed their capacities in the field of service to others; capacities that will undoubtedly serve them well in all aspects of their life.
Service in the Educational Context Having reexamined the notion of service, the implications for the educational context itself, particularly the question of curriculum and approach, need to be drawn out. Armed with a redefined notion of service, where and how can we integrate it into the educational process? In many servicelearning programs, service initiatives are integrated into existing courses or school curriculum, often with a civics or social justice course. Although the experience tends to enhance the content or topic being explored in class, the course content itself does little to prepare students to engage with the community or its members in the way described previously. For instance, the perspectives of the community tend to be overlooked. This section explores some of the implications of our reconceptualization of service for the educational content, the service activities themselves as well as the reflection component, and finally, the role of the teacher. The course content that students study in parallel to their service activities should help them become more effective in their service. Although this may be an obvious statement, it is by no means an easy task. On the one hand, this content needs to help students better read the reality of their communities through a situated learning approach (Krasny, Tidball & Sriskandarajah, 2009). Situated learning grounds learning in the process of acting in the world, although we would be cautious of radical constructivist accounts that completely ignore existing accumulated disciplinary knowledge. On the other hand, this content needs to facilitate the development in the students of the required capacities to serve their communities: the qualities, attitudes, and skills that distinguish an individual capable of building community. Of course, the envisioned would also help the student reconceptualize service as “othersserving” rather than “self-serving” (Karlberg, 2005).
By understanding that personal development is a natural outcome of service to others, the question of motivation and intention that students often grapple with—whether their actions are sincerely for the service of others when they are benefiting from them personally—is answered and such tensions are lessened. As for the integration of the service and reflection components, spaces need to be provided for students to critically reflect and consult on what they are learning and experiencing, as well as support structures developed to assist students in identifying and carrying out acts of service (Ash & Clayton, 2009; McLellan & Youniss, 2003). The reflection component must go beyond the mere description of what happened and how it made students feel. It requires structure for it to transform thought and behavior and to reconstruct knowledge so that students can take action toward improving the condition of their communities. In other words, the reflection process should, as with the content described previously, foster critical thought and consciousness and raise students’ awareness of the social structures with which they are interacting in their service and the effects of complex social forces on their communities (Freire, 1970). It goes without saying that the role of the teacher must likewise undergo a profound transformation, which will in turn modify the students’ role. The teacher must become a problem-poser, involved in a dialogical conversation with the students, a conversation that attempts to generate the learning required to transform their community (Freire, 1970). When this new posture is adopted by the student and the teacher—one in which both are actively seeking to read social reality with greater degrees of accuracy through action, reflection, consultation, and study—they are better able to determine what steps can be taken to ameliorate the collective life of their communities. This posture helps them see that the world is not static but is in fact in a process of transformation. With this heightened consciousness, young people are better able to find purpose and meaning in education and to think more deeply about how their own thoughts and actions shape the social environment and how the social environment in turn enables or limits individual growth.
Conclusion and Further Research Although certain studies cite positive individual development as an impact of service-learning programs, there is a gap in the literature about the impact on the communities these programs seek to serve, in part because of the larger cultural context in which individual growth is given greater importance, and in part because of a perception that the time of youth is mostly that of preparation for adulthood by means of academic studies, and that real engagement in the affairs of society will come later in life. By placing service-learning in the broader context of the twofold and mutually reinforcing processes of individual and community
7. Redefining Service-Learning for the Purpose of Social Change Within Education–•–51
development, and holding onto a conviction in the potentialities of youths to contribute to social change, a young person’s service to his or her community takes on added meaning. In this context, an individual’s growth flows from their focus on the community. The purpose of servicelearning transcends academic concerns and superficial “kind acts” that make one feel good. The implications for the educational process are clear. Educational content, the service component, and reflection
must demonstrate an understanding of the interconnectedness of individual and community development. Further, the dynamics between teacher and student must evolve to reflect a group of collaborators engaged in transformative action. While the vision can be laid out in these general terms, diverse dedicated research programs are required to generate and disseminate the learning concerning the “how” of community development through the efforts of youths in the context of the educational system.
References and Further Readings
Karlberg, M. (2005). Elevating the service in service-learning. Journal of the Northwestern Communication Association, 34, 16–36. Kraft, R. (1996). Service learning: An introduction to its theory, practice, and effects. Education and Urban Society, 28, 131–159. Krasny, M. E., Tidball, K. G., & Sriskandarajah, N. (2009). Education and resilience: social and situated learning among university and secondary students. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 38–56. Kurth-Schai, R. (1988). The role of youth in society: A reconceptualization. Educational Forum, 53, 113–132. Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth development: A view of the issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16. McLellan, J. A., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth services: Determinants of voluntary and required youth community service. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(1), 47–58. Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32. Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30–43. Seider, S. (2008). “Bad things could happen”: How fear impedes social responsibility in privileged adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 647–666. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Stetsenko, A. (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activist stance on development and learning: Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) project. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 471–491. Warren, J. L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning?: A meta-analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 56–61.
Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1, 25–48. Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California. Barber, B. (1992). An aristocracy for everyone. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Billig, S. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service-learning: The evidence builds. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 658–664. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cervone, B. (2010). Powerful learning with public purpose. New Directions for Youth Development, 127, 37–50. Checkoway, B., Richards-Schuster, K. Abdullah, S., Aragon, M., Facio, E., Figuero, L., … White, A. (2003). Young people as competent citizens. Community Development Journal, 38, 298–309 Claus, J., & Ogden, C. (1999). Service learning for youth empowerment and social change. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Coles, R. (1994). The call of service: A witness to idealism. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Dewey, J. (1916/2004). Democracy and education. Mineola, NY: Dover. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1994/2004). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8 THE POWER OF STUDENT ACTIVISM Teaching Social Justice in Middle School KRISTEN BERGER
MAIYA JACKSON
Manhattan Country School
Manhattan Country School
P
rogressive educators often consider John Dewey’s concept of citizenship education as they think about how to provide young people with the values and experiences they need to be engaged members of a democratic society. Founded during the Civil Rights Movement, Manhattan Country School (MCS) in New York City has always included a focus on social justice as an integral part of its P–8 education. Students are invited to learn about injustices in our society and to think about how they can respond. They engage in a variety of service and activism activities from the ages of 4 to 14. In 2005, as students witnessed the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the racial and class injustices that plagued the response to the disaster, they created with their teachers a new kind of social justice curriculum. This led to a series of projects, all initiated by students, where they sought to make a difference. Past projects have included the following: • Assisting elementary schools in the Mississippi Gulf Coast following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina (2006) • Holding a “Speak-Out Against Hate” in Central Park (2007) • Collaborating with Camp Sunshine (2008) • Raising funds for the MCS Farm’s new solar panel system (2009) • Traveling to West Virginia to engage in comprehensive programming addressing mountain top removal coal mining (2010)
• Taking a stand against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer bullying (2011) • Traveling to Washington, D.C., to lobby for the DREAM Act (2012)
This chapter describes the evolution of a program for student-led local and national activism in middle school. The program pushes students to go beyond community service, where one group is helping another in need, to question how they can address the problems in society that created that need. This kind of critical service-learning leads to educational experiences for children that define the importance of active involvement in their society. Education plays a vital role in the process. Students must learn how the injustice was created and its impact on the people it affects, as well as how to begin to stop it. They come to understand that everyone has needs and that justice occurs when everyone’s needs are fulfilled. The Activism Project brings to light many issues that this chapter seeks to address—how to balance a focus on students’ local environment with their desire to impact world issues, how to get past concepts of charity and rescue to establish solidarity, how to find service-learning opportunities for a diverse group of 12-, 13-, and 14-year-olds when many programs are designed for high school and college students, how to help students confront their own privilege as students from an independent school despite their socioeconomic diversity, and finally how to create and define a meaningful project that qualifies as activism.
53
54–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Literature Review From Traditional to Critical Conceptions of Service-Learning Aaron Einfeld and Denise Collins (2008) defined service-learning as students “complet[ing] tasks that address human needs while also accomplishing learning goals through reflective analysis” (p. 95). Traditionally, service-learning programs have entailed students engaged in direct service, including working in community centers, coupled with pedagogical instruction. The term service-learning is broad and has been applied to programs that are run with students of all ages and ability levels, in public, independent, and charter schools, and outside of school through afterschool programs, churches, and synagogues, and other nonprofit programs. Research has found many positive effects on students engaged in service-learning programs. They have been found to promote self-confidence, social responsibility, and civic mindedness (Einfeld & Collins, 2008). Despite these positive attributions, service-learning programs have also been the subject of criticism. The term service-learning encompasses a wide variety of programming, and too often projects are merely participatory in their orientation and fail to address underlying social issues. For example, students go into soup kitchens and serve food but are not asked why people are hungry and the need for soup kitchens exists. It has been found that being exposed to inequality does not necessarily lead to a commitment to social justice. When service-learning is not sustained or paired with appropriate pedagogy, it can reinforce rather than transform stereotypes and hegemonic power structure (Mitchell, 2007). In response to criticism, some practitioners have advocated for a rethinking of traditional service-learning and have created projects that more explicitly explore issues of power and challenge the status quo. Advocates of critical service-learning redefine the goals of service-learning programs to include “deconstructing systems of power so the need for service and the inequalities that create and sustain them are dismantled” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 50).
Social Reconstructionism and Citizenship Education A goal of many service-learning practitioners is to provide students with skills and experiences that they will need to be productive citizens. According to Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne (2004), there are three different approaches to citizenship education: personally responsible, participatory, and justice oriented. Education for each different type of citizen varies in emphasis and reflects a conscious choice by the school community to produce a particular version of social actor. Personally responsible citizenship education emphasizes personal
character building. Epitomized in programs such as the Character Counts! Coalition, these programs work toward establishing personal agency removed from the community’s distinct need for public action or critical analysis. Participatory citizenship education programs emphasize how government and community-based organizations work and develop collective learning skills. The justiceoriented citizen emphasizes social critique. Justiceoriented citizenship, like critical service-learning, aims for students to “analyze and understand the interplay of social, economic and political forces” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 241). Social justice-oriented service-learning tends to be activist in nature, engaging students in challenging the existing power structure through lobbying the government or staging protests and rallies. Social justice-oriented citizenship education has its theoretical roots in 1920s and 1930s social reconstructionism. The movement’s “most unique characteristic was a commitment to education as the vehicle for bringing about the reconstruction of society along the lines of social justice and the extension of democracy…. They also believed that education neither could nor should be a neutral institution” (Stanley, 1992, pp. 5, 11). It became the duty of the school to take a political stance in its curriculum and as an institution for the betterment of society. Educational philosopher John Dewey upheld that schools should provide opportunities for students to practice the skills that they will need to live in a democratic society. And that society should be one based on the principles of justice. As John Saltmarsh (1996) argued, for Dewey, “A democratic community defined by civic engagement was the end to be achieved and justice the means to that end” (p. 17). George S. Counts (1932) agreed that schools must be engaged in society and challenge children to help cure society’s ills alongside adults for education to have true meaning. He holds schools to an even higher standard: If Progressive Education is to be genuinely progressive it must . . . face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all of its stark reality, establish an organic relation with the community, develop a realistic and comprehensive theory of welfare, fashion a compelling and challenging vision of human destiny and become less frightened than it is today at the bogies of imposition and indoctrination. (p. 9)
The Case for Critical Service-Learning Although it would seem that schools are prime arenas for educating for citizenship and that active citizenship is a fundamental American value, too often justice-oriented citizenship education programs find themselves under attack. Social justice education is politically contentious and faces many challenges to implementation. Butin (2007) lamented,
8. The Power of Student Activism–•–55 While many of today’s social and economic conditions bespeak the dire need for greater equity and equality across historically marginalized populations the frontline institutions of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools are moving even further away from grappling with such fundamental and civic dilemmas. (p. 177)
One reason that schools distance themselves from activism-oriented curricula is a criticism voiced by conservatives, that social justice education is indoctrinating students with radical liberal beliefs about society (Butin, 2007). As a result, social justice education programs have become scarce or abandoned altogether. For example, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education has dropped language regarding social justice from accreditation standards (Westheimer & Kahne, 2007), whereas other social justice education programs that continue to exist have been co-opted by opponents and watered down under the more politically palatable title of “multicultural education” (Butin, 2007). Current education reform has also limited the ability of educators to implement activist programming. Schools have increased attention on mathematics and literacy due to high-stakes standardized assessments, limiting time spent on social studies in many schools, which is the part of the curriculum that mostly deals with citizenship education and social justice-oriented programming (Westheimer, 2008). Pedagogical approaches related to social justice goals, such as projects and hands-on learning, have been described as “soft” and ineffective at meeting current educational goals and standards (Westheimer & Kahne, 2007, p. 98). These criticisms and limitations all contribute to a hostile political climate for social justice educators. It is also the case, however, that this banking system of education often does not prepare students for the demands of the workplace or for citizenship. As Paulo Freire (1970) described in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, when teachers focus only on transmitting knowledge to students, the school becomes a bank, where information is regularly deposited into passive, willing human receptacles (p. 72). Freire contended that this process of receiving and repeating information is not learning; rather, students must join with their teachers in engaging with the world and learning together. “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (Freire, 1970, p. 72). The MCS Activism Project is one model for justice-oriented citizenship education programming that motivates students and provides opportunities for them to acquire and practice crucial higher order thinking skills. By asking students to think about and act upon their responsibility to work toward social justice as part of the curriculum, the intention is that education “becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world” (Shaul, 2000, p. 34).
Students respond with energy and curiosity when school asks them to engage in genuine problems that they recognize in their communities. Additionally, although other projects exist, most of the available research focuses on high school or college students. The MCS Activism Project can also serve as a model for working with middle school students on critical service-learning projects. Middle school students are ready and able to take on this important work, but when working with middle school students, the material will have to be adjusted to be developmentally appropriate and new challenges will likely arise.
The Activism Project Defining Activism and Choosing an Issue The Activism Project began as an answer to students’ desire to make an impact when they observe injustice in society. That led to a series of discussions about how to do this work with young people so that it was integrated into the curriculum and honored the experiences of the people facing injustice as well as those trying to create social change. With this in mind, each year’s project begins with the students defining activism. Each student brainstorms what activism means to him or her individually. They are then assigned to read University of Ottawa Professor Denis G. Rancourt’s (2007) article, “Activism and Risk—Life Beyond Altruism,” and talk about how the concept of activism as defined by Rancourt—as a political act intended to change the balance of power—compares with other related concepts of community service and charity. With Rancourt’s article as a framework, they compile their individual definitions into a collective definition. This activity of combining individual definitions into a class definition promotes student leadership and ownership of the project and creates the scope of the project. In the defining activism activity, the process as well as the product is important. Rancourt’s definition is controversial and conflicts with many students’ views about the nature of activism, but the goal of the conversation is not for all students to agree. Rather, the debate over the meaning of the word “activism” helps to broaden students’ understanding of the types of activities that we can and should engage in during our project. The MCS seventh and eighth graders define activism as “when a person or group of persons with a common belief work together to achieve political or social change.” Each year, the definition is different, as students shape their own understanding. The student Activism Committee is in charge of thinking about contemporary issues of injustice in the world. The committee is an elective class that meets once a week, although students often give additional time based on the needs of the project. The students choose three or four topics to focus on, and they do research to learn more about
56–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
why that issue is one that should concern them. Then they create presentations for their fellow seventh and eighth graders to educate them about the problems they have chosen. Last year, students presented about homelessness, factory farming, child labor, and youth immigration. Although the topics change every year, often they originate from students’ study of current events, one of the strands of the history curriculum. The history teacher, who also leads the Activism Project, gives some class time to asking questions about the issues and debating which one would be best for the students to take on as their next cause (see Figure 8.1). At this point, the focus is on the issue and not the project, although students also speculate what kinds of projects young people might be able to do. Because students are in charge of the process of choosing an issue, the project immediately belongs to them, and they are imbued with a sense of responsibility toward its execution. After two rounds of voting and many discussions, the students chose youth immigration as their topic for the year.
Providing the Foundation Once a topic is chosen, all of the seventh and eighth graders study the issues connected to the topic, as well as the work already being done to address it. This phase is crucial as it provides the foundation of the Activism Project, not only because students and teachers need to be informed but also because it embeds the project within the framework of the MCS curriculum. Students continue to learn and practice academic skills through the lens of a social justice issue that is important to them. They do research using a variety of sources, from the Internet to
Programming Ideas
Why should we do this project?
Information/Questions
Issue: Youth Immigration
Do you have any concerns about this project?
media to live interviews. They take notes, make connections, engage in critical analysis, and write frequently, both to share information and to persuade an audience. Understanding a topic such as youth immigration requires them to draw from their past studies of immigration in U.S. history as well as the rights of citizenship from their study of the Constitution. They deepen their understanding of democratic government as they read legislation and discuss what changes they think it needs for a divided Congress to pass it into law. Data and statistics play a role as well, as they compare the percentages of deportees from different countries. Since many of the immigrants who would be affected by the DREAM Act are Spanish speakers, activism also became a topic in students’ language classes. Each year, all of the subject teachers consider how the chosen issue will relate to history, English, mathematics, science, and Spanish, and the work of learning about the activism topic is distributed among all disciplines. As they studied youth immigration, the students focused on two primary areas. One was the recent banning of the Mexican American Studies program in Tucson, Arizona. Students and teachers watched Precious Knowledge, a documentary about the protests against the ban, and read articles about their work. The other area of focus was the DREAM Act, a proposed piece of legislation that would allow young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to have a path to citizenship. Representatives of Make the Road New York, a grassroots organization, came to speak about the activism that they have engaged in, including community organizing and protest marches. Two immigration lawyers who were parents at the school came to talk to the students about the naturalization process and the benefits and responsibilities of permanent residency status and citizenship. A young adult who would qualify as a DREAMer came to speak about what it felt like to have a law degree but to not be legally qualified to work in the United States. One student also shared his parents’ immigration story and what it felt like to know they were not citizens. The goal of the education phase of the project is to make a connection to people who are impacted by injustice and to understand the systems involved in perpetuating the injustice. The process of learning about the chosen topic also reinforces the importance of being informed citizens. Students see that they cannot engage in the political process without knowing the issues at hand, as well as how political change takes place.
Designing a Project
Figure 8.1 Graphic Organizer for Issues Debate SOURCE: Kristen Berger.
Deciding what they will do once they have chosen an issue takes time. Teachers and students discuss how the project will align with and join ongoing work already being done by communities that are organizing around the issue. At first, the students were very drawn to the story of the students fighting for the Mexican American Studies
8. The Power of Student Activism–•–57
program in Arizona. They wanted to go to Arizona to join the protest and help draw attention to their cause. Teachers felt that going to Arizona was not the right choice, as the trip would be mostly about a group of New York teens who had the ability to travel cheering on a movement that was already powerful. At the same time, the adults did not want to dampen the students’ enthusiasm about seeing other young people organize and fight for change. There were many conversations about how this idea fit into the students’ definition of activism. Teachers asked questions to challenge their thinking: What message would it send for us to come to the rescue of these students when their fight was not our own? How could we show solidarity without presuming that we know how to fix their problems? These were challenging issues for the students to wrestle with, as they required a nuanced understanding of power and privilege, but they eventually decided that showing their support with letters and emails was better than assuming the Arizona students needed New York students to join them. Ultimately, after much thinking, the Activism Committee chose to go to Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress to pass the DREAM Act. They articulated their choice by explaining that the students who would qualify for college admission and scholarships under the DREAM Act would be students who would be in college at the same time as the seventh and eighth graders, and they wanted to advocate for their right to attend school alongside their peers, many of whom do not realize they are not citizens until it is time to leave the public school system. Teachers also thought it was important for students to engage with an organization that participates in grassroots activism to give students both perspectives. A workshop with Voto Latino, an organization that works
to increase voter registration and voting in Latino communities, helped students see how activists organize communities to affect legislation. Learning about the organizations and people that are already engaged in activism on their issue helps build students’ awareness of the types of activist organizations that exist, including those working locally or globally and within or outside of the political system. Partnering with other organizations also helps students understand that their project should not be about how we will help others, but about meeting the needs of the people faced with injustice. In this work we are guided by the work of fellow activists—the teachers and students featured in the film Precious Knowledge; Make the Road New York, which was fighting to pass the DREAM Act in New York State; and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, whose national lobby day we joined in Washington, D.C. MCS students learn that there are a variety of approaches for making change in the world. They also see that they are not alone as activists and that the power of collective voices makes more impact. Because students came to understand the systems of power limiting access to citizenship and education, knowing that others were fighting for the same issues of justice and equality gave them hope that systemic change was possible. This hope was further reinforced when President Obama issued an executive order to allow young undocumented immigrants to apply for a twoyear work visa under provisions similar to those in the DREAM Act. The students knew that President Obama probably had not heard about their work in Washington, but they felt their voices were heard as part of a larger movement that was collectively cheering for this action by the president.
Trimester 1: Defining Activism and Choosing a Topic
• As a group, seventh and eighth graders define activism together to define the parameters and goals of our project. • The committee brainstorms issues that are important to them and surveys the entire seventh and eighth grades to gather ideas. • The top three to five ideas are developed into formal proposals, which are researched, presented, debated, and voted on until one idea is chosen to be our topic for the year.
Trimester 2: Educating Ourselves and our Community
• We learn more about our topic by reading articles, watching documentaries, and inviting speakers. • We also develop a logo and discuss the importance of “branding” our topic. • We try to plan an event during this time that involves the larger school community. • On trip years, we begin fundraising, fine tuning our message, and spreading the word about our project.
Trimester 3: Developing a Project
• In collaboration with partner groups working on our topic, we design a project to try to create change and make an impact on the issue.
Table 8.1
Timeline of the Activism Project
SOURCE: Kristen Berger.
58–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Project Impact The Manhattan Country School Activism Project provides many opportunities for curricular connections and authentic learning experiences that motivate students and build skills for justice-oriented citizenship. The seventh and eighth graders are constantly asked to utilize their critical thinking and decision-making skills in authentic ways as they confront the natural challenges of planning the project. The project draws on many other academic skills as well. Students started coming to school with articles and news stories they discovered through independent research as they educated themselves about the issues. They learned more about how to approach primary documents while reading the text of the proposed DREAM Act. They went beyond studying how a bill becomes a law to become lobbyists themselves, writing persuasive speeches as they worked on their individual versions of what they would say while in the offices of representatives and senators. Rebecca, class of 2012, reflected that when lobbying Congress on behalf of undocumented immigrants, Some groups met with people who have supported the DREAM Act in the past, some with people who did not support the DREAM Act in the past, and some with people who were undecided so we really had to know our stuff and be able to tailor our speeches for different audiences.
While students are executing the project, the subjects they study in school take on another meaning, as there is a purpose for learning mathematics, writing, and research skills when engaged in genuine work that requires them. The Activism Project has often been a motivating force for students who view themselves as outsiders in school or who do not see the value of school because they can see the meaning inherent in the project, which impacts people’s real lives. The project also gives students citizenship skills, as their work mirrors real-world efforts to fight for social justice. For example, students are involved in planning the budget for the Activism Project as well as meeting with the Development Office to talk about how they can run a fundraising campaign. Learning how to raise money for a cause provides insight into how nonprofit agencies fund their projects. Students reached out to their networks of family and friends through letters as well as social media, and they planned a Cultural Festival to raise money from MCS families. Their work ensured that the entire school became educated about the project and how they could contribute. Students’ experiences with fundraising and networking to build support, their partnerships with like-minded activist organizations, and the opportunity to witness government in action on lobby day lay a foundation for students to understand how social change occurs and strengthen the possibility that they will continue to do this work as adults. Finally, the impact on students after participating in the Activism Project reflects the value of critical servicelearning over traditional service-learning. Our students go
far beyond volunteering with a local organization or even building lasting relationships with a community in need. Rather, they understand the complexities of systemic injustice, the political process, and organizing for social change. Even in middle school, they can understand nuanced ideas and act on them to make a difference. They also educate others about their cause, raising awareness in their school community and spreading the activist spirit. The experience of being empowered to think about their world and how they can work together to make positive change is a lasting lesson of social responsibility.
Resources Education for Liberation Network, www.edliberation .org The Education for Liberation Network is a collection of students, teachers, and activists who “believe a good education should teach people—particularly low-income youth and youth of color—how to understand and challenge the injustices their communities face.” It hosts EdLib Lab, an online collection of shared resources about educating for social justice, publishes the quarterly magazine Voices in Urban Education, and holds the annual Free Minds, Free People conference for practitioners and researchers to share best practices. Project Citizen, http://new.civiced.org/programs/ project-citizen A subsidiary of the Center for Civic Education, Project Citizen provides curricular materials and professional development to help students and teachers “access problems and effect change in their local communities.” State and national offices then hold annual showcases for students to share their policy research and action plans. New York Collective of Radical Educators (NYCoRE), www.nycore.org The New York Collective of Radical Educators (NYCoRE) “is a group of public school educators committed to fighting for social justice in our school system and society at large, by organizing and mobilizing teachers, developing curriculum, and working with community, parent, and student organizations.” NYCoRE provides professional development and opportunities for social justice educators to network, holds an annual conference, and creates and provides curricular materials for teaching about undocumented immigrants, military recruitment in schools, racial justice, and other pertinent topics. Make the Road New York, www.maketheroad.org Make the Road New York “builds the power of Latino and working class communities to achieve dignity and justice through organizing, policy innovation, transformative
8. The Power of Student Activism–•–59
education, and survival services.” Their Youth Power Project organizes recent immigrants to pass the DREAM Act and to get colleges affiliated with the City University of New York to adhere to state law that allows undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition.
global stage.” Their Human Rights Activist Project trains students to participate in important public policy conversations and has included campaigning for the DREAM Act.
Global Kids, Inc., www.globalkids.org
The goal of the Progressive Education Network is to foster a dialogue about progressive practice and create a community of progressive educators. The organization holds a biennial national conference and more frequent regional conferences, and their website contains a variety of resources on progressive pedagogy and schools.
Global Kids operates school and afterschool programming that “works to ensure that urban youth have the knowledge, skills, experiences and values they need to succeed in school, participate effectively in the democratic process, and achieve leadership in their communities and on the
References and Further Readings Ayers, W., Hunt, J. A., & Quinn, T. (1998). Teaching for social justice. A democracy and education reader. New York, NY: New Press Banks, J. A. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global world. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 296–305. Butin, D. W. (2007). Justice learning: Service learning as justiceoriented education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 177–183. Counts, G. S. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order? New York, NY: J. Day. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social justice, multicultural competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 49(2), 95–109. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Print. Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of servicelearning in John Dewey: Toward a theory of servicelearning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1(1), 77–85. Mitchell, T. (2007). Critical service-learning as social justice education: A case study of the Citizen Scholars Program. Equity & Excellence in Education. 40(2), 101–112.
Progressive Education Network (PEN), www .progressiveed.org
Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. Parker, W. C., Ninomiya, A., & Cogan, J. (1999). Educating world citizens: Toward multinational curriculum development. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 117–145. Rancourt, D. G. (2007, February). Activism and risk—Life beyond altruism. Activist Teacher [Online]. Retrieved from http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/activism-andrisk-life-beyond-altruism.html Saltmarsh, J. (1996). Education for critical citizenship: John Dewey’s contribution to the pedagogy of community service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1), 13–21. Shaul, R. (2000). Foreword. In P. Freire (Ed.), Pedagogy of the oppressed (pp. 29–35). New York, NY: Continuum. Stanley, W. B. (1992). Curriculum for utopia: Social reconstructionism and critical pedagogy in the postmodern era. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Wade, R. (2007). Service learning for social justice in the elementary classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 156–165. Westheimer, J. (2008). What kind of citizen? Democratic dialogues in education. Education Canada, 48(3), 6–10. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2007). Introduction. Equity & Excellence in Education. 40(2), 97–100.
9 CRITICAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND SOCIAL JUSTICE A Holistic Curriculum AMY ARGENAL
TOMÁS JACQUEZ
The Urban School of San Francisco
The Urban School of San Francisco
A
s service-learning educators, we constantly question our practice. “Why do I work with students?” “How do I engage all of my students to fully participate in their service-learning experience?” Working with students means believing in the power of all student voices and their capacities to positively transform our classrooms, workspaces, communities, and societies. Service-learning encourages student action and self-discovery while honoring our college-bound culture by seeking to prepare civically engaged citizens and leaders who will be our future problem framers and problem solvers within an increasingly diverse local and global workforce. Working in the service-learning department at The Urban School of San Francisco (Urban) allows us to pursue a vision anchored in relationship building, student action and reflection, and positive transformative social change without having to worry about teaching to a test or meeting a core standard. Service-learning as a discipline allows us to put our energies toward creating a class where all students feel empowered to tackle complex social issues and reflect on how their identities impact their daily experiences. We believe the service-learning classroom is a learning environment where students are challenged and given the opportunities to address and understand social patterns within communities. Student learning is process oriented and driven by inquiry, action, and reflection, which ultimately promotes democratic participation.
This chapter is a journey about incorporating a critical stance and social justice education into a four-year servicelearning program at an independent high school in San Francisco. As members of the service-learning department at Urban, we will discuss our use of a critical service-learning and social justice education framework within the program. We offer an overview of the classes, a discussion of sample lessons, and an example of student feedback. More specifically, we emphasize the importance on highlighting systems of power, incorporating youth culture, putting identity at the core of the program, engaging in authentic relationships with students and community partners, and guiding students to view themselves as agents of change.
Critical Service-Learning and Social Justice The Urban service-learning program embraces and follows three core curricular and pedagogical principles: (1) critical service-learning (Cipolle, 2010; Mitchell, 2008); (2) social justice youth development (Ginwright & James, 2002); and (3) developing authentic relationships. Cipolle (2010) in her view of critical service-learning, asserted that: While there are many worthwhile service projects that meet real needs in the community, for service-learning to be critical, students and teachers need to examine issues of power, privilege, and oppression; question the hidden bias and 61
62–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT assumptions of race, class, and gender; and work to change the social and economic system for equity and justice. (p. 5)
Mitchell (2008) defined critical service-learning as an approach that • highlights systems of power and encourages students to not only understand the work they are doing, but why that work was needed and what systems are in place that created the need for that work; • encourages students to think of themselves as agents of change. Not doing service as a one-time event but developing ongoing relationships with organizations; • challenges students to reflect on their own situation and be self-aware of how that might influence the relationship they can develop with a community partner; and • collaborates with community partners so that it is not only about the service event but both the school and the community partner can work together on the lessons and on other events.
Our second driving principle comes from the social justice education field. Ginwright and James (2002) offered five key principles of Social Justice Youth Development Framework: (1) the analysis of power in social relationships; (2) ongoing self-reflection on identity; (3) promotion of systemic social change; (4) encouragement of collective action; and (5) embracing youth culture. One final core principle centralizes the importance of caring and building and sustaining positive relationships between the students and the faculty in the department. Delpit (1997) accentuated being “vulnerable enough to allow our world to turn upside down in order to allow the realities of others to edge themselves into our consciousness” (p. 47). Mitchell (2008) wrote, “In the critical service-learning classroom, developing authentic faculty and student relationships provides a model for engagement in the community. This is achieved by a commitment to dialogue, developing self-awareness, critical reflection, and building solidarity” (p. 61). These three core principles guide the work for our service-learning department and four-year program. The distinguishing shift from traditional service-learning to critical service-learning introduces social justice education principles and centralizes classroom conversation around privilege and oppression. As discussed in the following sections, the space for these conversations is a key component of all four years of the program. It is not just about students engaging in community and reflecting on that experience, but it must also be about an understanding of systems of injustice and encouraging students to reflect on their own relationships to power.
The Urban School of San Francisco Founded in 1967, Urban is an independent private fouryear high school located in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco. The school has 375 students, 75%
of whom are from San Francisco, 12% from Marin, 6% from East Bay, and 7% from Peninsula/South Bay. The average class size is 14. The faculty to student ratio is 1:10, and 56% of faculty has advanced degrees. The school consists of 31% faculty of color and 32% students of color. Twenty-nine percent of students receive tuition assistance, which amounts to $2.48 million. Connection to the community has been a core value since the school was established. The school considers servicelearning a necessary component to meet the core value that “learning extends beyond the classroom to instill a sense of mission and purpose as citizens of the larger community and world” (The Urban School of San Francisco, n.d.). The creation of a four-year program and a service-learning department reflects the mission-driven nature and support of the school, administration, and board of directors, in which all parties believe in instilling “a consciousness of social justice, an ethic of citizenship and a commitment to service” (The Urban School of San Francisco, n.d.).
The Four-Year Program All Urban students are required to take one service-learning class per year, and seniors have the option to continue with service during a second term if they have a dedicated project. The courses offered are Freshman ServiceLearning: Identity and Ethnic Studies; Sophomore ServiceLearning: Identity and Community Partnerships; Junior Service-Learning Independent Internship and Seminar: Identity at Urban and Beyond; and the Senior ServiceLearning Independent Internship and Synthesis Seminar. Identity work is a key component for all four years of the program. Ginwright and Cammarota (2002) discussed the importance of “promoting the praxis of critical consciousness and social action” (p. 88), which includes progressing through three levels of awareness: (1) selfawareness, (2) social awareness, and (3) global awareness. Self-awareness targets self-evaluation and gaining a positive sense of self. The goal of self-exploration is to develop a social and cultural identity that understands how identity is coupled with privilege or oppression through the use and/or misuse of power (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). Social awareness explores how local issues impact one’s daily experience. Global awareness “encourages them to practice critical reflection in order to empathize with the struggles of oppressed people throughout the world” (p. 90). While Ginwright and Cammarota’s findings reflected work with urban youth and students of color, their writings provided an urgent framework for a largely privileged student body who must understand their own privilege and power in order to promote positive social change. As Mitchell (2010) wrote in her review of Cipolle’s work, We need to find ways to do this work where White students and students of color (not to mention students in other privileged and marginalized categories) can be challenged and
9. Critical Service-Learning and Social Justice–•–63 supported in developing their consciousness and commitments across multiple dimensions of identity and experience. (p. 96)
The incorporation of identity work at all four years attempts to develop a critical consciousness that has the potential to strengthen their engagement with communities different from their own. As students gain competency around how their identities impact their daily experiences, they begin to reimagine and re-envision their relationships with community partners. Students arrive to work with community partners with the mindset to build and sustain positive and reciprocal relationships. At the same time, community partners are invited to use campus space; they are invited to school events and performances and conduct trainings with the sophomore class. Furthermore, we continuously look for ways to bring community organizations into the classroom, through guest speakers and co-facilitated lesson plans. The following sections provide a succinct glimpse into the application of the three aforementioned core principles.
Ninth-Grade Identity and Ethnic Studies Ninth-Grade Identity and Ethnic Studies is a six-week course designed for students to explore their identity and culture, as well as examine historical factors that shape social constructions such as race, ethnicity, nationality, and class. This introductory course provides students with foundational tools, language, and concepts for thoughtful and engaged community and global citizenship. Students explore how factors such as race, ethnicity, culture, and immigration help shape one’s identity and experiences. They are expected to develop further their sense of self-awareness, personal responsibility, and purpose. Students receive an introduction to the concept of race as a social construction. A key goal is for students to understand that although race is not biological, its social and political ramifications are exigent (Lopez, 2000). This course serves as an introduction to the service-learning program as it is important for students to understand their own identity before they attempt to work with communities different from their own. Green (2001) wrote about her work with college students engaging in service-learning, It is absolutely crucial that race be addressed in servicelearning courses, and especially in service learning courses where mostly white students perform service among mostly people of color. Well-intentioned White people, both students and faculty, must learn racial awareness, and middle class people of all races must think about how class affects the service situation. (p. 18)
Large-group discussions, self-reflection activities, and simulations provide space to examine the perspectives of their classmates and help students maneuver
through a journey of understanding complexities around race. Students complete one to two written journal reflections per week. Students view the PBS video, Race: The Power of an Illusion (Adelman, 2003) and conduct readings on various legal cases throughout history around racial identity. Apart from understanding the content around race, students are also asked to explore themselves in terms of social identifiers by way of three main projects: (1) identity molecule, where they list both visible and invisible aspects of themselves and share out with the class; (2) heritage exploration project; and (3) a multimedia presentation on a social construction that affects their life other than race. These projects grant students an opportunity to unpack and understand more about their own identities and share with their class as a way of learning to build community.
Tenth-Grade Service-Learning: Identity and Community Partnerships The 10th-grade service-learning class is a six-week course that prepares sophomores to become responsible and resourceful citizens who partner with nonprofit agencies and organizations working to serve a range of local needs and issues. The course introduces students to frameworks for effective citizenship, community engagement, and professionalism. The service-learning department has ongoing relationships with three or four different community organizations for the entire year, where different student groups will rotate in and out every six weeks while they are taking their class. Students get in small groups and work with a community organization once a week for 2.5 hours during the school day. Furthermore, they attend class twice per week where they are developing positive community relationships, exploring identities, and beginning to unpack how social class impacts lived daily experiences. “I love the journal assignments and prompts. My favorite part is that they are a safe space to respond and let out my true ideas” (10th-grade student, 2013). Students read and discuss myriad factors of social class. Furthermore, students work together to research social justice activists and create a visual presentation to share with the class. The final presentations are displayed around the school for the rest of the community to see. Students identify and reflect on their passions, values, and skills with the end goal of aligning their 11th-grade internship with a community organization. This activity not only includes self-reflection but also asks the students to look outside into the community as an asset-based resource. The final project is a microdocumentary on a local community organization that aligns with students’ personal passions, values, and skills. Many of the students come from families with a higher socioeconomic status, and it is important to engage in conversations around the complexities of social class and privilege as well as the pitfalls of entitlement.
64–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Eleventh-Grade Service Learning Independent Internship and Seminar: Identity at Urban and Beyond The 11th-grade service-learning class is a 12-week course where students pursue independent community work once a week and engage in a twice-weekly seminar to arrive at new understandings of identity, social constructs, and the influences they have on their experiences. This course is divided equally between time spent in the classroom and time spent engaged in the community with a local nonprofit organization. Class curriculum is designed into three main components: (1) understanding the “critical” in critical servicelearning; (2) identity work, with an introduction to whiteness, power, and privilege; and (3) introduction to social justice theory. Students engage in a term-long research project where they investigate a social issue of their choice and conduct an end-of-term student-led final presentation and classroom lesson. The work done in the class on “critical” service-learning introduces students to different frameworks on the levels of community engagement and the difference between charity and justice (Office for Social Justice, Archdiocese of St. Paul Minneapolis, n.d.). Building a strong class community is essential when beginning the work on identity, power, and privilege. Classes begin with a check-in and community-building games in order to create a positive and safe community. “I really appreciate how open this class is to my needs. It is a safe place amidst all the other high school stress” (11th-grade student, 2013). The second core component of the curriculum is the introduction to whiteness and White privilege as a part of developing critical consciousness. This begins first with a review over the identity work done in the ninth-grade class, where students can begin to list their identifiers. Students revisit and review their social identities through an activity out of Educating for a Change (Arnold, Burke, James, Martin, & Thomas, 1991) called, “The power flower: reflection on our social identities” (p. 87–88). This reflection activity gives students the chance to see where they hold places of privilege in society and where they do not. Beginning with this activity allows both White students and students of color to enter the dialogue on privilege. Although the classes are predominantly White students, racially mixed groups and students of color need to feel comfortable in the conversations. As Green wrote, “when race is talked about, whiteness and white privilege should be analyzed and theorized so that whiteness does not remain invisible as a category” (p. 25). After leading students’ activities that are more reflective, students then address readings on whiteness. They are assigned McIntosh’s (1990) piece, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” and watch Wise & Jhally’s (2008) video The Pathology of Privilege. Finally, students are introduced to theories on social justice. Space is provided for students to process the different
emotions associated with power and privilege, while also allowing space for them to feel that they can take action. The lessons on social justice introduce the Ten Principles of Social Justice (Bell, 2007) and give students the space to think of ways they can engage with the principles. The course ends with the students’ minilessons on their social issue.
Twelfth-Grade Service-Learning: Independent Community Engagement and Synthesis Seminar Twelfth-grade service-learning is similar to the 11thgrade program in that it is a 12-week course in which students continue to pursue independent service-learning community work in the larger community and engage in twice-weekly synthesis seminars aimed to revisit their three previous years of coursework within the program. The curriculum is divided into two key components. The first is the continuation of identity work done in the previous three years. It is important to continue to offer students the ability to constantly engage and reflect on the program. Students will not arrive at a final destination on understanding oppression and privilege but will continue to move back and forth through a process. Green (2001) wrote, “the process of white racial identity development is on-going” (p. 20). The 12th-grade class continues to allow students the space to explore systemic oppression and privilege, social patterns, and occupied border spaces. The curriculum also introduces readings on poverty and intersectionality so students can continue to find both how they relate to oppression and/or privilege. Students conduct a reading jigsaw on “Introduction: Plight, Fight, and Insight of the Poor—The Need for a Pedagogy to End Poverty” (Baptist & Rehmann, 2011). The second component of the course is the social issue research project grounded in a group-elected issue where students create social media accounts on platforms such as Tumblr, Twitter, and Scoop.it, and they engage with other groups around their research topics. Groups are self-selected and have three main requirements: (1) students maintain active engagement on their social media site, (2) students lead a team-teaching activity for the rest of their class on their social issue, and (3) groups lead the class through an action component based upon their research. Group research projects highlight the Social Justice Youth Development Framework of (a) self-awareness, (b) social awareness, and (c) global awareness (Ginwright & James, 2002). The action component encourages collective action and virtual action via social media blog sites in which students choose the medium they feel best represents how they communicate with their peers as well as a wider audience. Service-learning at Urban is a push to understand and get involved with the issues that are occurring in our communities and around the world. We see these things happening, and obviously we all have strong opinions about them because we
9. Critical Service-Learning and Social Justice–•–65 have such meaningful discussions in the classroom, but as students it can be difficult to make contact with organizations or even figure out how/where we can get involved. Service Learning is just a gateway to taking action on issues we believe need to be fixed. (12th-grade student, 2013)
Conclusion As educators in an independent school, we recognize the privilege that we hold to have a department dedicated to service-learning, not only in resources but also in the time invested during the school day for this class. Not being limited by high-stakes testing, we can commit an entire class to this subject. We also recognize that this may not be possible in many other institutions. We understand that
References and Further Readings Adelman, L. (Producer). (2003). Race: The power of an illusion [DVD]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/race/000_ General/000_00-Home.htm Arnold, R., Burke, B., James, C., Martin, D., & Thomas, B. (1991). Educating for a change. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Between the Lines. Baptist, W., & Rehmann, J. (2011). Introduction: Plight, fight, and insight of the poor- the need for a pedagogy to end poverty. In W. Baptist & J. Rehmann (Eds.), Pedagogy of the poor: Building the movement to end poverty. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bell, L. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Cipolle, S. (2010). Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Corrigan, R. (2007). Foreword. In J. Calderon (Ed.), Race, poverty and social justice: Multidisciplinary perspectives through service learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Delpit, L. (1997). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press. Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2002). New terrain in youth development: The promise of a social justice approach. Social Justice, 29(4), 82–95.
teaching service-learning is in many ways a privilege; however, there are still many everyday challenges. The school is a place of wealth and often is easy to disconnect from the realities of much of the work being done by the community organizations. In the school environment, students can intellectualize the issues they are encountering, which is less complicated than combatting the feelings that arise when exploring power and privilege around identity. Feelings such as blame, shame, and guilt (McIntosh, 1990) are complex, thorny, and difficult to navigate within the classroom. Our goals as educators are to continue to push our students to challenge themselves with both head and heart thinking, to engage with community rather than perform service on a community, and to take action and responsibility not because of their guilt but because of the role we all should take in the democracy in which we live.
Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. New Directions for Youth Development, 2002(96), 27–46. Green, A. (2001). “But you aren’t white:” Racial perceptions and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Service Learning, 8(1), 18–26. Lopez, I. (2000). The social construction of race. In R. Delgado (Ed.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. McIntosh, P. (1990). Unpacking the knapsack of white privilege. Independent School, 49(2), 31–36. Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. Mitchell, T. (2010, Fall). Review essay: Challenges and possibilities: Linking social justice and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Service Learning, 94–97. Office for Social Justice, Archdiocese of St. Paul Minneapolis. (n.d.). Charity vs. justice. Retrieved from http://sites .saintmarys.edu/~incandel/charjust.html The Urban School of San Francisco. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.urbanschool.org/page.cfm?p=2 Wise, T. (Director), & Jhally, S. (Producer & Editor). (2008). Tim Wise on White privilege: Racism, white denial and the cost of inequality [DVD]. Retrieved from http://www .mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action &key=137
10 CONSTRUYENDO COMUNIDAD Developing a Bicultural and Bilingual Framework for Community Building J. ESTRELLA TORREZ Michigan State University
I
n the following chapter, I briefly chronicle the development of a bilingual and bicultural civic engagement course model. During my spring 2009 civic engagement class, the enrollment was composed primarily of White, middle-class, socially engaged undergraduate students and bilingual, Latino, farmworker, students enrolled in a high school equivalency diploma program. The class, a first of its kind, was conceived with the sole objective of bridging two campus “communities.” Having been a former seasonal farmworker myself and now an assistant professor at Michigan State University (MSU), I was able to identify with both groups of students to various degrees. The course brought together two distinct student communities: university students enrolled in a residential “living-learning” undergraduate humanities focused program with those participating in a high school equivalency degree-awarding program. Whereas a majority of civic engagement courses focus on taking students off-campus to the outside community, I choose to centralize the engagement within the university community. The notion was inspired by a common experience among first-generation university students, who do not possess the navigational capital to transition smoothly into higher education and therefore struggle to acclimate to university culture. In my experience as a first-generation student, I grappled with understanding the university culture, whereas my middleclass peers flowed effortlessly into this next phase of life. For migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the average level of completed education is 8th grade, and high school
graduation rates are approximately 30% (National Center for Farmworker Health Inc., 2012). So, I leveraged resources to link high school equivalency program (HEP) students with academic support resources. One such support is connecting undergraduate students savvy in navigating educational institutions with HEP students to share information regarding university matriculation, financial aid, and social culture. The university students served as peers in collaborative writing projects and provided individualized writing tutoring for their HEP partners. The HEP students were in consensus in correlating a particular type of cultural capital to academic success that would then translate to socioeconomic stability. The French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu first came to the notion of “cultural capital” in his work investigating academic outcomes of children in France. At the core, this form of capital can be viewed as skills that provide access to higher societal status through generational transmission of knowledge needed for academic success (Bourdieu, 1986). However, the White university students lacked the experiential knowledge of navigating racially hostile institutions (i.e. education, health, judicial, or the job market) (Yosso, 2005). The HEP students were well aware of such oppressive structures and creative in structuring networks to access needed resources. My development of opening bilingual and bicultural community-building spaces in this civic-engagement course encouraged students to dialogue around issues of race, class, gender, and other forms of oppression. It was 67
68–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
within these particular spaces that students exchanged stories in the process of self-reflexivity. As a result, students understood themselves within the global and local context, and furthered their ability to construct community (Darder, 2002). This chapter discusses two activities representational of the bilingual and bicultural communitybuilding spaces created in the course. The first was an activity focused on learning about the lived experiences outside of one’s own reality. The second discussion is on the final research project. These two assignments generated dialogue around sensitive issues through highlighting the social inequities existing within our campus community. As such, this chapter provides civic-engagement instructors with a bilingual and bicultural model developed to bring together two distinct groups of students on university campuses.
a Freirean framework, students are encouraged to come to terms with their own power as critically engaged citizens and provided spaces to question social inequities. The civic engagement curriculum operates through a carefully designed model consisting of four interlocking components: insight, practice, action, and passion. Each of these components reciprocally inform one another and are conceptualized in a nonlinear fashion, thereby allowing for students to move through the process in a way conducive to their own needs, as well as those of the community “served.” This civic-engagement model was created to support our college’s mission, and it is not only central to our curriculum but also the impetus for a two-course graduation requirement. This model served as the basis for the courses I teach with an alteration of its components to meet the community partners’ needs and course objectives.
Background
Current Issues
It is important to differentiate between service-learning and critical service-learning, as a clear curricula distinction exists at MSU. Service-learning is best understood as a pedagogical tool incorporating community service into classroom learning to expand the students’ understanding of course materials (Mitchell, 2008; Rimmerman, 2009). Service-learning can also be used to empower students to solve issues within communities in which they may or may not be community members (Farber, 2011). In these cases, service-learning course objectives focus on students, whereas research objectives are on the effects of servicelearning experiences for students. In these instances, the effects on community of service-learning are not central to either the course or related research. Whereas service-learning is not overtly political, critical service-learning is purposefully infused with social justice components (Mitchell, 2008; Porfilio & Hickman, 2011; Rhoads & Howard, 1999). Similar to civic engagement, critical service-learning is a political project; however, it diverges in that “students develop the critical awareness in relation to what gives rise to the dark social realities of the present as well as gain the desire to remake the social world for the lives of all people” (Porfilio & Hickman, 2011, p. xi). Critical service-learning projects’ expectations are to interrogate systems of oppression, work to dismantle social inequities, and forge authentic relationships between higher education institutions and the community “served” (Porfilio & Hickman, 2011). Although MSU uses the term civic engagement, I find that the curriculum is aligned with a critical service-learning framework. Therefore, for the purposes of this chapter, I use the term critical service-learning in reference to my course. In reviewing MSU’s civic-engagement curriculum, it is easy to discern a direct relationship to critical servicelearning frameworks, as both are heavily influenced by the work of revolutionary pedagogue, Paulo Freire (1970). In
Current research focusing on civic engagement illuminates volunteerism ethos as a trend within higher education. In such a climate, the dialogue examining structural reasons for creating need is not nurtured (Bickford & Reynolds, 2002; Monberg, 2009). Moreover, the research on such instruction emphasizes the effects of service-learning projects upon the participating students, rather than examining the focus on the community members served (Monberg, 2009).
Partners: “Served” and “Server” In unpublished research essays examining this unique civic-engagement experience, I reconceptualized the idea of civic engagement by underscoring the consistent cycle of “server” and “served” moving throughout the project. In transforming this binary into a cycle, students are confronted with the array of differing forms of capital possessed by marginalized communities. Traditionally, service-learning courses focus on working with communities off campus; however, for this course our community partners were on campus. A definite departure from traditional service-learning models, this on-campus partnership allows students to provide and receive “services.” Course objectives included establishing community within the classroom, in addition to developing a current and relevant research project culminating in a final paper and presentation. By creating a collaborative space, challenges arose as students struggled to navigate cultural chasms, language barriers, and developing skills to connect with one another on an “authentic” level. As stated, the students involved in this course were drawn from two distinct campus groups. The two student populations participating in the course were university students enrolled in a residential program focused on the arts and humanities, whereas the second group comprised students enrolled in the high school equivalency program.
10. Construyendo Comunidad–•–69
Having no prior experience with one another, students had to collaboratively define civic engagement, engage in meaningful dialogues of social inequities, and formulate a framework for developing community within a structured university context.
The HEP Students HEP, as part of the 1965 Higher Education Act, is a federally funded program whose purpose is to provide financial and academic assistance to migrant and seasonal farm worker students in their pursuit of a high school diploma. Locally, MSU’s Migrant Student Services (MSS) has brought migrant students to MSU for more than two decades. MSU’s MSS program accepts 50 HEP students annually and recruits students primarily from Texas, Florida, and Michigan. HEP students participating in the course represented the Texas Valley region, Florida, and Southwestern Michigan. Most of the families came from Spanish-speaking households; however, this particular course also included two indigenous Oaxacan Mixtecspeaking male cousins. In recent years MSU’s HEP has recruited Haitian participants from Florida. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers are among the most economically disadvantaged laborers in the United States; 23% of farmworker families live well below the national poverty level (National Center for Farmworker Health Inc., 2012).
University Residential Students MSU’s Residential College in the Arts and Humanities (RCAH) was established in 2007 to offer students an intimate liberal arts learning environment on a large state university campus. Based on demographic information provided by the college’s director of student affairs, the RCAH students were primarily White and suburban, from middle- to upper-class backgrounds, with college-educated parents. In its first years, the college’s student body was primarily made up of students from the outer ring of Metropolitan Detroit, Chicago, or Grand Rapids. The students involved in this course had various levels of Spanishlanguage proficiency, ranging from entry-level high school Spanish courses to fluency.
Challenges In U.S. higher education institutions, civic engagement courses generally focus on working off campus where community is situated as the location, “or the place where we hope students can encounter difference and emerged transformed” (Monberg, 2009, p. 24). In my teaching, the community was embodied by both groups of students, and, therefore, I conceptualized each student as engaged in a reciprocal relationship of service provider and receiver. Similar to most civic-engagement courses, students were expected to work alongside their community partners to
identify issues related to social inequities and then work collaboratively to work through posed problems. My challenge became finding ways to engender trusting spaces for all participants. Jack Harris (2009) cautioned that if instructors do not plan accordingly, “Students may be indelibly imprinted to their prejudices, relationships between the college and service agencies may be damaged, and those receiving the services that students provide could come to harm” (p. 21). The unique student makeup of the course made developing a trusting space difficult and required strategic engineering of opportunities for organic social interactions. The social distance divided the class, both metaphorically and physically. The HEP students were housed in a building in the far southwestern corner of campus rarely visited by any students other than those living or attending classes in the facility; meanwhile, the RCAH students resided in a newly renovated building on the northeastern corner of campus. Students, faculty, and administrators throughout campus heavily visited the multimillion-dollar renovated facility to enjoy the cafeteria or to use classroom space for meetings. Interestingly, the economic dynamics were represented in each of the group’s residences. The dormitories’ physical distance was represented in students’ seat choice. In the classroom, this division was apparent as HEP students selected the seats furthest from the front of the class. Inversely, RCAH students chose the seats in the front of the class. The division remained until the third week of class, after which I instructed students to sit near their partners. I formulated the groups with the following in mind: one RCAH student, two or three HEP students, equal distribution of bilingual and monolingual students, and gender. For example, one group consisted of one female Spanish-English proficient bilingual RCAH student (she has strong writing and speaking skills in both languages), two male HEP students (one student was equally bilingual in Spanish and Mixtec, whereas the other student was Spanish-Mixtec bilingual with limited Spanish-speaking abilities). After dividing students into groups, the class automatically sat with their partners and quickly began introductions. Metaphorically, social distance manifested from distrust, misconceptions, and pervading stereotypes. HEP students, who were all of Mexican descent, were distrustful of their RCAH partners and apprehensive of sharing information with a group from a higher socioeconomic level for fear of judgment. In contrast, RCAH students were nervous to engage in discussions on social inequities with individuals who struggled against oppressive structures daily. During an office visit, a third-year RCAH student confessed her discomfort in discussing social inequity knowing that the HEP students were directly impacted by structural racism and classism. Moreover, she felt the RCAH students had no right to discuss possible resolutions of social injustice when they had not encountered the daily challenges the HEP partners struggled. By and large, I observed their apprehension was linked to the perceived idea that they directly benefited
70–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
from these socially constructed hierarchies. Yet, as I will describe, these relationships did develop over the course of the semester and the impact continued and expanded beyond the 16-week semester. Another clear division was observed through the language choice in the class, which served as a reminder of the distance between the students. With a mix of monolingual and bilingual students, HEP students used Spanish exclusively among one another while accommodating the university students as best as they could. In the first three weeks of the semester, HEP students chose to speak with me in Spanish only. The RCAH students spoke exclusively in English; however, they did their best to accommodate the monolingual HEP students when working in small groups.
Practice Central to the class was developing a mutual understanding and actualization of civic engagement. Civic engagement, as employed in the RCAH, involves four components: insight, action, practice, and passion. Insight requires an awareness of oneself, one’s communities, and one’s collective world. Action underscores the importance of critical self-reflection, particularly in understanding one’s sense of place. It is also central in engaging the discussion of power relationships as well as one’s individual role in upholding and disrupting asymmetrical social hierarchies. Practice involves learning to be part of a community through solidarity and interrogating asymmetrical social relationships. These three elements are layered on the backdrop of passion, which asks students to engage with the world filled with a sense of excitement and wonder. Moreover, passion encourages those involved to embrace and celebrate social change. The RCAH model is grounded in the Freirean (1970) concept of praxis, the process by which one incorporates critical reflection, theory, and action to act on the world. Therefore, the model guided my course’s inception, construction, and facilitation. In conjunction with the RCAH’s civic-engagement model, I outlined the course content through a Latina/o critical race theory (LatCrit) theoretical lens. LatCrit is needed when working with Latino populations, as it examines oppression through the auspices of race, language, citizenship status, ethnicity, culture, identity, gender, and phenotype, to name only the dominant foci of this framework (Stefancic, 1998). Having students read LatCrit works assists them in recognizing the various institutional structures oppressing some sectors of society while privileging other groups. In addition to providing students with context, these texts serve as a basis to initiate dialogue of social inequities broadly.
Research as an Act of Community Building Taking into consideration Ellen Cushman’s (2002) critique of end-of-the-semester project models, the student groups were required to develop a research project based
on a topic related to social (in)justice. In the traditional model of the end-of-the-semester project, students base an entire semester’s work on one project submitted at the end of the semester, and oftentimes students maintain a “server” and “served” relationship between themselves and their community partners (Cushman, 2002). The final project facilitated research skills, as well as represented a journey in community-building. Participants generated themes in class (e.g., poverty, homelessness, hunger, health care, criminal justice system, and education), which provided a springboard for the partner groups to select a final research project topic. In class, students organized themselves in various combinations composed of HEP and RCAH students. Interestingly, project topics reflected issues personally connected to one of the students in the groups. For example, as a result of a discussion initiated by a 19-year-old male HEP student, his group focused on unfair labor laws as related to migrant labor. The HEP student shared his frustration with growers’ refusals to pay living wages to agricultural workers and particularly the consequences of low wages on families. Another group focused on the Palestine/Israel conflict to assist an 18-year-old female RCAH student gain a perspective different from her family’s position regarding the conflict. For students who were trained to be dependent on “academic scholarship” for information, the research projects presented an opportunity to integrate testimonials with scholarly works. Meanwhile, the students who were familiar mainly with testimonials gained valuable research skills needed in traditional classrooms. When joining these two forms of scholarship, students gained a critical perspective on investigated themes and made the issues personal. Despite the groups’ intentions to objectively investigate broad themes of social injustice, the final papers presented a deeply intimate engagement with the identified issue. Through the research project, groups connected larger societal issues to individuals directly affected, thereby repositioning students’ previously-held perspectives. In the end, students were self-reflexive and saw the multiple connections of their individual lived realities.
Establishing a Multilingual Space Before students began their research projects, I dedicated the first weeks to introducing the civic-engagement model through collectively defining each component. Participants’ language proficiency ranged from monolingual English to monolingual Spanish to various levels of bilingualism in between, which warranted instituting communication strategies. To assist in communication, I instituted groups composed of a monolingual Spanish speaker, monolingual English speaker, and bilingual speaker. I generated all information (e.g., syllabus, handouts, and slide presentations) in both Spanish and English. Despite Spanish being my heritage language, my limited knowledge of specific terminology in Spanish required the HEP
10. Construyendo Comunidad–•–71
students to assist me in translating. An added dimension to the translation was our fortune in having two HEP students with Mixtec as their heritage language. The male Oaxacan student’s translation of civic-engagement terminology into Mixtec provided an additional dimension to concepts presented. Such was the case when introducing community, which in Spanish translates to comunidad with roughly the same definition in English: a group of people moving toward a common goal. The Mixtec speakers questioned, “Why were the English and Spanish definitions of community devoid of a sense of responsibility?” The Mixtec translation ñuu connoted more than cohabitation, as the indigenous term involved a mutual responsibility for individuals. The discussion ensuing from translating one term into three languages oftentimes presented intriguing topics for further discussion, especially as students had to define the term in their own language for someone who was not familiar with the term (or language). Inevitably, these activities were illustrative of the interdependence needed to establish a meaningful learning environment.
In one conversation, a 19-year-old female HEP student was asked to share about her family life. Rather than simply stating the number of family members in her family, she shared a harrowing story of having to raise her younger siblings. At the age of 14, her parents were detained by local immigration enforcement for two months. The young girl maintained the family home until relatives arrived during her parent’s detainment. At the end of the story, she intimated never having imagined telling her life story to a “White person.” For her, White people were never to be trusted and always viewed Latinos in a pejorative manner. In this exchange, the RCAH student listened intently in disbelief of the strength exhibited by a 14-year old. The dialogue ended with the HEP student expressing her disinterest in pity but noting that she saw this experience symbolic of perseverance, strength, love, and resilience. At the end of the class, students exclaimed they were grateful for the opportunity to ask candid questions free of judgment and in the spirit of community. For the students, these interactions cemented a firm foundation of trust within the class.
Speaking the Truth
Implications
A second activity that facilitated the process of community building, and certainly engaged the model of civic engagement, was entitled “speaking the truth.” Midsemester I requested each student to submit three questions they have always wanted to ask “other” students. The HEP students presented questions regarding their RCAH partners and vice versa. To ensure anonymity, all the questions were given to me for collation, typing, and translation into both English and Spanish. In the groups, students asked one another questions from the prepared list with the caveat that each individual was given one “pass” on an inquiry too uncomfortable for a response. I rotated through the various groups to observe, assist in translation, and participate in dialogue when requested. As expected, the first 15 minutes of the activity were filled with guarded responses and “safe” questions, such as: Do you miss your family? What do you like about living on campus? What concerns did you have about moving? As students grew more confident with the dialogue, the questions became more personal. In one group, a female HEP student asked her White RCAH partner, “What did you think about us at first and what do you think about us now that we have spent some time together?” Despite the university student’s initial discomfort with the question, she proceeded to share her thoughts. She commented that prior to this course, the opportunity to develop a friendship with a Mexican peer was never presented. Initially, the RCAH student was apprehensive of working with someone from such a “diverse background” but has come to realize another world existing within her own. The conversation evolved into a discussion of embarrassment, guilt, unease, and trust. Surprisingly, the HEP students were the least timid in sharing and were the first to initiate the difficult questioning.
Instrumental to the course was a collective understanding of the various definitions of community and how we inhabit multiple communities at one time. Students first were asked to define community, identify their communities, and recognize those additional communities existing within their immediate community. More importantly, students considered social hierarchies that identified marginalized communities as culturally or linguistically deficient. Similarly, students interrogated their roles in sustaining such inequities and co-create practices to disrupt such systems. In activities around acknowledging linguistic diverse populations, establishing practices to ensure all class involvement, and creating an open space to share their life stories, a model of bilingual and bicultural civic engagement emerged. Unlike traditional service-learning focusing on a “serve to learn and learn to serve” model, this course fostered an exploration of engaging the “big questions” of social inequities dividing communities. Using student-driven research themes as entry points into our classroom dialogues, we unpacked the ways in which these social inequities shape individual lived experiences. When this dialogue emerged in trusting spaces, students were encouraged to “see themselves as agents of social change, and use the experience of service to address and respond to injustice in communities” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 51). Outside developing academic research skills, students gained a sense of individual responsibility for resolving social inequities directly impacting their “new” community. The bilingual and bicultural model expands the understanding of civic engagement, in particular the notion of community partnership. Furthermore, it intentionally interrogates power dynamics. By bringing together two
72–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
groups of students from one campus, students can understand themselves as global citizens, but more importantly they can understand the world existing within their immediate surroundings. Consequently, students learned to recognize the multiple spaces they simultaneously inhabit. The cognizance of living in multiple communal spaces encourages students to gain a sense of responsibility for individual choices affecting those outside of individual social circles. Furthermore, it is the significance in such awareness that truly enables citizens to live in a global society.
Conclusion There is limited research on the effects of service-learning or civic engagement on community partners, and even less in regards to engaging with students as both the “provider” and community partner “served.” In this chapter, I briefly provide a snapshot of a critical service-learning course engaged in developing a bilingual and bicultural community-building framework, as well as reimagining the idea of community partner. A future examination of this course will continue to flesh out an innovative “border-crossing”
References and Further Readings Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236–253. Bickford, D., & Reynolds, N. (2002) Activism and servicelearning: Reframing volunteerism and acts of dissent. Pedagogy, 2(2), 229–252. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood. Butin, D. W. (Ed.). (2005). Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions. New York, NY: Palgrave. Cushman, E. (2002). Sustainable service-learning. College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 40–65. Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, CO: Westview. Farber, K. (2011). Change the world with service learning: How to create, lead, and assess service learning projects. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of indignation. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Fry, R., & Lopez, H. M. (2012). Hispanic student enrollments reach new highs in 2011. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www .pewhispanic.org/2012/08/20/ii-hispanic-public-schoolenrollments
civic-engagement model impacting students, community partners, and faculty. Addressing the lack of research in this area is important for several reasons: First, as the number of Latinos increases in the United States, there also grows a need for society to address the expanding population’s academic needs. In fact, recent Pew Hispanic Center findings reported that Latinos are the fastest-growing population in the U.S. public schools, accounting for one of four public school students (Fry & Lopez, 2012). Second, as universities continue to encourage the incorporation of servicelearning or civic-engagement courses, students must prepare to understand the multiple layers of community they inhabit. In moving through or inhabiting simultaneously numerous communities, students will need bilingual and bicultural skills to foment stronger relationships within and among these communities. Antonia Darder (2002) reminded us that, “Who we are and how we come to know the world is profoundly influenced by the particular events that shape our understanding of the world at any given moment in time” (p. 62). The idea that students move through and simultaneously inhabit multiple communities necessitates bilingual and bicultural models to prepare them for an ever-changing global society.
Green, A. E. (2001). “But you aren’t White”: Racial perceptions and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(1), 18–26. Harris, J. (2009). Service-learning: Process and participation. In Rimmerman, C. (Ed), Service-learning and the liberal arts (pp. 21–39). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. McKay, V., & Estrella, J. (2008). First-generation student success: The role of faculty interaction in student learning courses. Communication Education, 57(3), 356–372. Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. Monberg, T. (2009). Writing home or writing as the community: Toward a theory of recursive spatial movement for students of color in service-learning courses. Reflections: Writing, Service-Learning, and Community Literacy, 8(3), 21–51. National Center for Farmworker Health Inc. (2012). About America’s farmworkers. Retrieved from http://www.ncfh .org/?pid=4&page=1 Porfilio, B., & Hickman, H. (Eds.). (2011). Critical servicelearning and revolutionary pedagogy. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Purmensky, K. (2009). Service-learning for diverse communities: Critical pedagogy and mentoring English language learners. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Rhoads, R. A., & Howard, J. P. (Eds.). (1999). Academic service learning: A pedagogy of action and reflection. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rimmerman, C. (Ed.). (2009). Service learning and the liberal arts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
10. Construyendo Comunidad–•–73 Sedlak, A., Doheny, M., Panthofer, N., and Anaya E. (2003). Critical thinking in students’ service-learning experiences. College Teaching, 51(3), 99–103. Stefancic, J. (1998). Latino and Latina critical race theory: an annotated bibliography. La Raza Law Journal, 10, 423–498.
Yoder, C. A. (2009). Power and service-learning: Implications in service-learning for social justice. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University. Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
11 CRITICAL DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP A Learning Outcome Model to Support Engaging for Justice CYNTHIA GORDON DA CRUZ Saint Mary’s College of California
M
any U.S. higher education institutions are committed to missions of preparing students for civic engagement for justice in a democracy with persistent inequities. But broad missions like these are difficult to define, and depending on how such missions are articulated, the associated learning outcomes can be quite distinct. This leaves educators with the question: What learning outcomes advance civic engagement for justice in a democracy? Further, once learning outcomes are established, educators must consider what pedagogies could facilitate student development toward this goal, as well as whether their programs support the development of these learning outcomes. The purpose of this chapter is to undertake this multifaceted challenge for U.S. postsecondary institutions that have the mission of preparing students to engage civically for justice in a democracy. This chapter begins with precisely articulating how the author understands such a mission so that educators can assess whether they have similar goals. To this end, the author defines the terms democracy and justice and considers whether the U.S. democracy has achieved justice. Next, based on literature reviews of existing civic-engagement outcomes, the author proposes one concrete set of civic-engagement goals (participation, openness to multiple perspectives, controversy with civility, active thinking, justice-orientation, and structural thinking about racial inequality) that are intended to be general enough to apply across disciplines and universities, yet specific enough to give universities concrete learning outcomes for which to strive. The author names this set of learning
outcomes critical democratic citizenship (a note about terminology: citizen and citizenship are used to refer to civically engaged people and not documentation of affiliation with a nation). In the implications section, the chapter outlines content and pedagogy that can support the development of these learning outcomes. Finally, for educators interested in adopting these learning outcomes, tools and further resources to measure success are briefly discussed.
Precisely Understanding Democracy and Justice To choose student learning outcomes that support civic engagement for justice in a democracy, one must begin with precisely articulating this goal. First, the author considers understandings of democracy. Political events throughout the modern world have illustrated there are multiple forms of democracy (Haste, 2010). Indeed, there are many understandings of democracy not only in academia but also in popular culture: As of 2014, the main Wikipedia entry for democracy lists 30 different variants. Recurrent themes for democracy in critical and higher education theory include the importance of (a) widespread participation, (b) shared responsibility, and (c) that all people who must follow a principle have an effective voice in its establishment (Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, & Corngold, 2007; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2010; Young, 1990). The author considers these aspects of democracy to choose applicable student learning outcomes. 75
76–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
As with democracy, moral philosophers and critical theorists have defined justice in multiple ways. For example, Rawls and Kelly (2001) advanced an often cited theory of justice as fairness or the fair distribution of goods like wealth, income, social positions, and even self-respect. Critical and feminist theorists responded with a capabilities approach to justice, which shifts from Rawls’s concern with goods to “what goods do to human beings” (Sen, 1979, p. 219). Capabilities are about humans being able to choose lives they have reason to value (Sen, 1979). Nussbaum (2000) proposed a set of 10 capabilities to which all human beings should have access. According to the capabilities approach, the justice of a society can, in part, be determined by whether each human being in a society has real opportunities to reach a threshold level of each capability. One way to facilitate such justice is to ensure the inclusion of each person in collective problem solving, paying explicit attention to the voices of vulnerable and diverse members of society (Young, 1990). Therefore, integrating recommendations from critical and moral theorists and higher education civic-engagement researchers, one precise understanding of a mission to prepare students to civically engage for justice in a democracy would include preparing students to (a) civically participate for the common good, (b) support human capabilities being freely open to all (Nussbaum, 2000; Sen, 1979), and (c) engage in and support decision-making processes that include the voices of all those impacted by decisions (Young, 1990).
The U.S. Context: Racial and Ethnic Injustice Civic engagement does not, however, occur in a vacuum. It must be understood within a particular societal context. To choose civic-engagement learning outcomes that can support justice in the U.S. democracy as outlined earlier, one must also consider whether the U.S. context is currently just. This chapter is focused on racial and ethnic justice for two main reasons. First, this area is under-researched in civic education. Second, racial and ethnic diversity is not only currently present in the United States, but also it is steadily increasing (Berstein & Edwards, 2008). In 2008, racial and ethnic minorities made up roughly one third of the U.S. population; by 2042 these “minorities” are predicted to become the numerical majority. To consider whether the U.S. democracy is just according to the capabilities approach, we must ask whether opportunities to achieve capabilities are equitably available to each human in the United States; three are considered in this section. First, Nussbaum (2000) argued for the importance of bodily health. To evaluate whether people in the United States have racially equitable and real opportunities to achieve bodily health, the racial demographics of health insurance holders are considered because insurance strongly influences access to health care (Bloom & Cohen, 2011).
Within the age group of adults most likely to lack health insurance (20 to 29), more than one half of Latina/o and one third of non-Latino/a Black young adults are uninsured, compared with one quarter of non-Latino/a White young adults. Among those who are uninsured, Whites are the most likely to still have a regular source of medical care (47%), compared with Black (40%) and Latino/a (33%) young adults. Thus, access to achieve the human capability of bodily health is unjustly distributed across racial and ethnic groups. Second, Nussbaum (2000) argued for the human capability of freely experiencing senses, imagination, and thought, which is cultivated by access to quality educational opportunities. African Americans/Blacks, Latina/o, and Native American/American Indian students (students of color) have less access than their White peers to highly qualified teachers, well-resourced schools, low student-toteacher ratios, and high expectations (Diamond, 2008; Ferguson & Mehta, 2004; Gandara & Maxwell-Jolly, 2000; Kozol, 2005; Orfield & Lee, 2005). Further, whereas 75% of White students earn high school diplomas, only about 50% of students of color graduate with regular high school diplomas (Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004). The outcomes remain bleak in higher education. Although access to higher education for African Americans/Blacks and Latino/as has improved, retention has not. In 2010, among U.S. adults who started postsecondary education in 2003, six-year attainment rates for bachelor degrees were about 46% for Asians, 37% for Whites, 17% for Blacks, and 17% for Latina/os (Skomsvold, Radford, & Berkner, 2011). Thus, access to achieve the human capability of freely experiencing senses, imagination, and thought is racially and ethnically unjust. Control over one’s environment is a third of Nussbaum’s 10 capabilities. Politically, it refers to having a voice in decision making (Young, 1990) or participating in political efforts that will impact one’s life (Nussbaum, 2000). In the United States, members of Congress hold significant decision-making power over the U.S. environment, making policies and laws that impact people in the United States and beyond. Therefore, if the U.S. democracy has achieved justice in this capability, then members of Congress will be representative of the racial and ethnic composition of citizens in the United States. This is not the case. In 2011, African Americans/Blacks made up 13.1% of the U.S. population, but they only represented 8.1% of members of Congress; Latino/as were 16.7% of the U.S. population and only 5.7 % of Congress; Asian Pacific Islanders made up 5.2% of the population and 3% of Congress; and American Indians made up 1.2% of the population and 0.2% of Congress. In contrast, in 2011, Whites were 63.4% of the U.S. population and an overwhelming 83% of Congress (Manning, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). These disparities raise concerns about whether people of color have just access to the human capability of control over one’s environment and just representation in decisionmaking processes.
11. Critical Democratic Citizenship–•–77
In short, if we define justice as a democracy in which the opportunities to achieve capabilities are freely open to all (Nussbaum, 2000; Sen, 1979) and decision-making processes include the voices of those impacted by decisions (Young, 1990), then the United States has not yet achieved racial and ethnic justice. These persistent racial and ethnic injustices in opportunities for human capabilities are the context in which postsecondary graduates must be prepared to civically engage for justice.
Learning Outcomes for Civic Engagement for Justice in a Democracy
civility (Komives & Wagner, 2009), active thinking (Gurin et al., 2011), justice-orientation (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), and structural thinking about racial inequality (based on Lopez, Gurin, & Nagda, 1998). (See Figure 11.1.) As detailed in this section, these learning outcomes are chosen to support the development of knowledge, skills, or commitments that students would need to engage for justice in a diverse and inequitable democracy and they are broad enough to apply to a wide spectrum of universities across a range of disciplinary boundaries.
Participation
Now that the author has defined justice and democracy and illustrated that the U.S. democracy is currently unjust, it becomes possible to choose concrete learning outcomes to support civic engagement for justice. Using the Education Resources Information Center search engine and multiple combinations of the following search terms—civic education, democratic education, (student) learning outcomes, higher education, diversity, and justice—the author compiled a list of potential learning outcomes. Then, based on the understandings of democracy, justice, and the U.S. context outlined previously, the author constructed the critical democratic citizenship learning outcome model. This model consists of six learning outcomes: participation (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), openness to multiple perspectives (Gurin, Nagda, & Zuniga, 2011), controversy with
One type of democracy that could support justice is one in which there is widespread participation and citizens have shared responsibility to work toward the common good. A learning outcome that would support this type of democracy is a commitment to participation. Westheimer and Kahne (2004) defined participation as involvement or actions in collective community-based efforts; in local, state, and national issues; and for the general betterment of one’s communities. Previous understandings of citizenship more narrowly defined participation as voting behavior or political party affiliation. However, more recent critically motivated researchers have argued for defining participation more broadly, such as youth organizing for change in their schools and neighborhoods (Mira, 2010), trying to influence friends’ or co-workers’ political opinions, or blogging on social issues (Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, &
Interacting competently with diversity
Openness to multiple perspectives
Engaging in a democracy
Controversy with civility
Participation
Critical democratic citizenship Structural thinking about racial inequality
Active thinking
Justice-Orientation
Working for racial equity and justice
Figure 11.1 Critical Democratic Citizenship
78–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Corngold, 2007). The author chose Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) understanding of participation because it is broad enough to integrate these varied definitions.
Openness to Multiple Perspectives An openness to multiple perspectives is the tendency of an individual to think from the perspective of another individual (Gurin et al., 2011). Although participation is key to engagement, participation alone is not enough to prepare students for the goal of competently engaging in the diverse U.S. context. Widespread participation and shared decision making in the United States will increasingly be taking place among racially and ethnically diverse citizens. Furthermore, solving complex public problems for which we do not yet have answers—such as group-based injustice—is likely to require collective action (Loeb, 1999, cited in Komives & Wagner, 2009). To develop collective action strategies to resolve public issues, people will need an openness to multiple perspectives so that they can communicate and collaborate effectively with diverse others.
Controversy With Civility Controversy with civility is a learning outcome with the goal of creating group cultures that welcome controversy (Dugan & Associates, 2012; Komives & Wagner, 2009; Tyree, 1998). It is a leadership competency for working toward positive social change based on the assumption that people need to engage civilly with conflict in order to develop new and creative solutions to social problems. Although openness to multiple perspectives is a necessary skill, it is likely insufficient for tackling complex social issues. As diverse citizens engage to improve the common good, they will encounter problems for which U.S. society has not yet achieved solutions. For example, what policies, laws, or actions are needed to resolve the racial disparities in access and outcomes to high school education (Orfield et al., 2004)? Or, how could people address the crisis of ever-increasing prison populations and the inequitable representation of African American men in incarcerated populations (Alexander, 2010)? People not only will have multiple and differing perspectives on how to resolve these issues, but also these differing ideas are likely to conflict with one another. In summary, to devise civic-action strategies to solve complex social issues, students engaging for social change will likely need both the skills of thinking from another’s perspective and also navigating controversy civilly with fellow citizens.
Learning Outcomes to Combat Racial and Ethnic Injustice As outlined, postsecondary graduates need to learn how to effectively civically engage in a democracy currently
wrought with racial and ethnic injustice. The opportunities to achieve human capabilities (Nussbaum, 2000; Sen, 1979) such as bodily health; senses, imagination, and thought; and control over one’s environment are inequitably available to members of minority racial and ethnic backgrounds. The next three learning outcomes—active thinking, justiceorientation, and structural thinking—are intended to support postsecondary graduates to promote justice in this context.
Active Thinking Active thinking describes a tendency and motivation for individuals to think deeply and analyze the root causes for individual actions and behaviors (Gurin et al., 2011). Individuals who score high in active thinking (a) prefer complex as opposed to simple explanations for people’s behavior, (b) try to figure out how the world operates, and (c) are interested in the complex ways in which social institutions affect people’s lives. Active thinkers are less likely to fall prone to the fundamental attribution error—a tendency to underestimate the situational determinants and overestimate internal causes of an individual’s behavior (Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson, & Reeder, 1986). A student who avoids the fundamental attribution error and instead searches for contextual and situational causes for individual circumstances is better equipped to deconstruct the systems, policies, or laws in our society that are promoting inequality. Therefore, active thinkers are well positioned to analyze how social institutions may be perpetuating inequality and collectively work with others to rectify the situation.
Justice-Orientation A justice-oriented citizen focuses on the relationships amongst social, economic, and political forces and pays explicit attention to injustice, social movements, and systemic change (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Considering the current context of U.S. society, in which justice or equitable access to human capabilities has not yet been achieved, pairing the learning outcome of active thinking (Gurin et al., 2011) with a justice-orientation (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) could improve students’ preparation to civically engage in ways that promote justice. For example, take the case of a ballot proposition that would raise state sales taxes for the purpose of increasing state-level funding for K–12 education; theoretically, a person who thinks actively with a justice-orientation would investigate the relationship between educational inequality and school funding policies to determine how to vote. In contrast, a student committed to a learning outcome like personal responsibility—individual acts of compassion and kindness (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004)—may consider education funding to be the personal responsibility of parents, or perhaps neighborhoods with children. In this hypothetical example, the author argues that the
11. Critical Democratic Citizenship–•–79
actively thinking, justice-oriented student is in a better position to civically engage in a way that promotes justice in U.S. democracy.
Structural Thinking About Racial Inequality The sixth and final civic-engagement learning outcome focuses specifically on knowledge for rectifying racial inequity because in a society plagued by multiple racial and ethnic inequities, we need people actively supporting racial justice (Warren, 2010). To be prepared to positively impact the racial justice of U.S. democracy, students need knowledge of the structural causes and impacts of racial and ethnic inequality (Bobo, Kluegel, & Smith, 1996; Nagda, Gurin, & Lopez, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 2006). Structural-level explanations focus on policies, laws, and cultural practices that could impede the success of members of particular groups, such as prejudice, discrimination in hiring and promotion practices, and funding laws. These are in contrast to individual-level explanations for inequality that focus on personal attributes and characteristics, such as effort or cultural values. For example, to explain racial disparities in education test scores, an individuallevel explanation might focus on lack of effort or assert that a particular culture does not “value education,” whereas a structural-level explanation would consider racially unequal access to highly qualified teachers and well-resourced schools. The author argues that students who understand structural-level explanations are more likely to civically engage—as voters, as future teachers, and so on—in ways that promote justice. While individuals’ life situations are generally a combination of individual choice and agency within larger, often race- and class-based structures of opportunity, U.S. culture and media encourage attention to individual choices and often mask the role of differentially available structures of opportunity. Thus, in the aforementioned set of proposed student learning outcomes, structural thinking about racial inequality is particularly key, because logically, awareness of the presence of systematic racial inequalities is a precursor to developing strategies for deconstructing such systems.
Critical Democratic Citizenship Together, the learning outcomes just discussed make up critical democratic citizenship (Gordon da Cruz, 2013a). Critical democratic citizenship is one set of possible learning outcomes designed to help students engage in a democracy (through participation) that is diverse (through openness to multiple perspectives and controversy with civility) and work toward righting inequality and justice (with active thinking, a justice-orientation, and structural thinking about racial inequality). In the context of an increasingly diverse, yet inequitable U.S. democracy, critical democratic citizenship is one strategy for preparing
students to deconstruct structural racial inequities and realize the ideal of a more just democratic nation.
Implications: Developing and Measuring Students’ Critical Democratic Citizenship Choosing student learning outcomes in support of a clearly articulated mission is only the first of many complex steps for educators. Postsecondary professionals interested in supporting students’ development of critical democratic citizenship must also design courses and programs that cultivate these student learning outcomes. Further, once programs are designed, measurement instruments will be necessary to assess their success.
Content and Pedagogies to Develop Critical Democratic Citizenship Researchers have studied correlations between multiple civic engagement outcomes with classroom content and pedagogy (e.g., Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004). Several studies indicate that content on the sociohistorical causes of inequality is correlated with many civic student learning outcomes (Lopez et al., 1998; Nagda et al., 2003). These studies demonstrate the importance of pairing inequality content with classroom discussions, experiential activities, collaborative action projects, and engaging with courserelated issues outside of class, such as working with community members and applying course concepts to real-life social problems. Both service-learning and communityengaged scholarship use many of these pedagogical components. Community-engaged scholarship refers to mutually beneficial partnerships between universities and communities that support the collaborative development and application of knowledge to consequential public issues. Future researchers should investigate the impact of inequality content, service-learning, and communityengaged scholarship on critical democratic citizenship (e.g., Gordon da Cruz, 2013b).
Assessing Critical Democratic Citizenship To know whether courses and programs are forwarding critical democratic citizenship, educators will need to assess student learning. The six learning outcomes for critical democratic citizenship have statistically validated measurement instruments. Many of these measures are published in the Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project Guidebook (Gurin et al., 2011). Additionally, Gordon da Cruz (2013b) refined these instruments through structural equation modeling and developed items to measure content and pedagogies for developing students’ civic engagement. Educators interested in measuring program success should consult these publications for further information on assessment.
80–•–I. FOUNDATIONS OF SERVICE-LEARNING AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Conclusion Multiple postsecondary institutions are committed to preparing students for civic engagement. Addressing problems like racially disparate access to health care and the inequitable access and outcomes in public education require people capable of analyzing the structural causes of inequality and collectively acting on what they discover. Critical democratic citizenship is a learning outcome model intended to support student development toward this goal.
References and Further Readings Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness. New York, NY: The New Press. Berstein, R., & Edwards, T. (2008, August 14). An older and more diverse nation by midcentury. U.S. Census Bureau News. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/ web/20080822044429/http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html Bloom, B., & Cohen, R. A. (2011). Young adults seeking medical care: Do race and ethnicity matter? NCHS Data Brief, 55, 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ data/databriefs/db55.pdf Bobo, L., Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (1996). Laissez-faire racism: The crystallization of a ‘kinder, gentler’ anti-black ideology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement. San Francisco & Stanford, CA: Jossey-Bass; The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Diamond, J. (2008). Focusing on student learning. In M. Pollock (Ed.), Everyday antiracism: Getting real about race in school (pp. 254–257). New York, NY: New Press. Dugan, J. P., & Associates. (2012). Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership 2012: Institutional reports. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Ferguson, R. F., & Mehta, J. (2004). An unfinished journey: The legacy of Brown and the narrowing of the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 656–669. Fletcher, G. J. O., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., & Reeder, G. D. (1986). Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 875–884. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: A dilemma of quality and quantity (Series: Teaching and California’s future). Davis, CA: University of California, Davis. Giroux, H. A. (2010). Lessons from Paulo Freire. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57, B15–B16. Retrieved from http:// ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search .ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5494 5638&site=ehost-live&scope=site
As people going on to leadership positions in our society—such as teachers of our nation’s children, managers with power to hire and promote, or politicians and school board members making decisions about local, state, and national policies—higher education graduates are uniquely positioned to rectify injustice. By clearly articulating a mission and choosing applicable learning outcomes, this chapter has undertaken an important step in understanding how to develop students for racially just civic engagement.
Gordon da Cruz, C. (2013a). Critical democratic citizenship: Engagement for equity and justice (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA). Gordon da Cruz, C. (2013b). Critical democratic citizenship: The effects of community-engaged scholarship and inequality content on student learning (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA). Gurin, P., Nagda, R., & Zuniga, X. (2011). Multi-university intergroup dialogue research project guidebook. Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/migr/files/migr_ guidebook.pdf Haste, H. (2010). Citizenship education: A critical look at a contested field. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 161–188). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. (2009). Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Lopez, G. E., Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. A. (1998). Education and understanding structural causes for group inequalities. Political Psychology, 19(2), 305–329. Manning, J. E. (2011). Membership of the 112th Congress: A profile. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.senate.gov/reference/ resources/pdf/R41647.pdf Mira, M. (2010). Pushing the boundaries: What six youth organizers at Boston’s Hyde Square Task Force have to teach us about civic engagement (Qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA). Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., & Lopez, G. E. (2003). Transformative pedagogy for democracy and social justice. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 6(2), 165. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (2006). Black wealth/white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality (10th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
11. Critical Democratic Citizenship–•–81 Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. B. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Rawls, J., & Kelly, E. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what? Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Retrieved from http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_ documents/a-to-z/s/sen80.pdf Skomsvold, P., Radford, A. W., & Berkner, L. (2011). Six-year attainment, persistence, transfer, retention, and withdrawal rates of students who began postsecondary education in 2003–04. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Education Statistics.
Tyree, T. M. (1998). Designing an instrument to measure socially responsible leadership using the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD). U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). State and county quick facts: USA. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/00000.html Warren, M. R. (2010). Fire in the heart: How White activists embrace racial justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
PART II USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
12 ATTENTION AND ACTION The Southwest Florida Paradigm for Community-Engaged Scholarship
T
BRANDON W. KLIEWER
JESSICA J. RHEA
Kansas State University
Florida Gulf Coast University
BRANDON P. HOLLINGSHEAD
COURTNEY DWYER SATKOSKI
Florida Gulf Coast University
Florida Gulf Coast University
his chapter describes Florida Gulf Coast University’s (FGCU) commitment to service-learning and civic engagement in the College of Arts and Sciences. Specific attention is given to the way that the Interdisciplinary Studies Program institutionalizes commitments to community-engaged scholarship in the college curriculum. In particular, our chapter highlights how faculty, administrators, students, and community partnerships contributed to a sophisticated theoretical framework for the Foundations of Civic Engagement course, what we call the Southwest Florida paradigm for community-engaged scholarship. Community-engaged scholarship is understood to extend from the model of teaching, research, and service announced by Ernest Boyer (1997). We demonstrate how this paradigm informs course assignments, supports course objectives, and is consistent with best practices of servicelearning pedagogy. Finally, we outline practical dimensions of the course and methods of democratic engagement that can support the creation of community-engaged scholarly projects that are reciprocal, mutually beneficial, and maintain increased levels of sustained community impact. The Southwest Florida paradigm and Foundations of Civic Engagement course can be adopted by other universities and programs interested in developing a foundational
community engagement course for undergraduate certificate and degree programs related to community-engaged leadership. Community-engaged leadership undergraduate programs advance a curriculum and service-learning model that supports the purposes and processes associated with democratic engagement and align with the principles of community engagement. This model of communityengaged scholarship and democratic engagement is contrasted with the common faculty-centered models of service-learning and community engagement that are anchored to the charity and direct service models. The charity and direct service models of service-learning and community engagement are generally informed by unidirectional transfers and interpersonal relationships, which are not consistent with the principles of community engagement defined by the Carnegie Classification system.
The Southwest Florida and Florida Gulf Coast University Context for Engagement FGCU has commitments to community engagement in the human and natural environments of our local community. As a regional state university, FGCU was established with 85
86–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
a tapestry of environments and communities in mind. The university’s mission and guiding principles are informed by its location and define institutional commitments to campus–community partnerships, co-curricular service, curricular service-learning, civic responsibility, engaged citizenship, and community awareness and involvement. Environmental sustainability and community engagement are embedded in its identity. Students are required to complete 80 hours of co-curricular service in order to graduate; upper-level transfer students complete 40 hours. In 2011, FGCU was awarded the Washington Center’s Higher Education Civic Engagement Award and Florida Campus Compact’s Engaged Campus of the Year award, and it has been included on the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll with Distinction since 2011. To uphold institutional values and elevate communityengaged scholarship, the College of Arts and Sciences offers the undergraduate course Foundations of Civic Engagement, a graduation requirement for 19 of 24 majors. In keeping with the college mission, students and faculty are civically engaged in the community in an effort to build a more sustainable future. The major assignment of the course is the Civic Engagement Project (CEP), in which students develop a sophisticated understanding of an issue and produce a community-engaged scholarly product in collaboration with a community partner. Students explore questions of citizenship and civic participation through critical thinking, written assignments, group discussions, assigned readings, and applied engagement, and they learn foundational principles of civic engagement and community-engaged leadership through theoretical study and engaged action. The Foundations of Civic Engagement course is housed in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program. Faculty from across the college and academically qualified community leaders are invited to teach the course. The College of Arts and Sciences has conducted three formal assessments of the course and the CEP, based on the Association of American Colleges and Universities Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education project. The most recent assessment, in summer 2012, led to a reexamination of civic engagement theory, service-learning pedagogy, and clarification of shared course components. This resulted in the revision of course objectives (Appendix A), the Civic Engagement Project (Appendix B), and the course reader (Davis & Lynn, 2006).
Theoretical Framework The institutional commitment and the new perspective provided by course assessment led the Foundations of Civic Engagement faculty to reconsider the theoretical basis that informed the course and overall course design. This section highlights how the theory of democratic
engagement informs the applied execution of the course. Democratic engagement is an approach to service-learning and community engagement that defines the curriculum and applied experience in relation to the purposes and processes of democratic practice (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011). When considering the learning goals of any course on civic engagement, it is impossible not to consider the literature on democratic theory and democratic engagement. The theoretical basis of our Foundations of Civic Engagement course recognizes the core competencies of civic engagement (Brammer et al., 2011) but extends the curricular objectives in relation to democratic theory and the methods of democratic engagement. Our faculty, students, and community partners refer to this approach as the Southwest Florida paradigm for community-engaged scholarship (see Figure 12.1). This method includes foundational techniques, elements, spheres and perspectives of engagement coupled with the study of democratic engagement theory, the application of theory in practice, and evaluation. A key theoretical component of our course is unpacking the concept of engagement. Ben Berger’s (2011) deconstruction of the theoretical underpinnings of political engagement informs our curricular paradigm. Berger (2011) argues that civic scholar-practitioners should understand engagement as embodying two components: attention and action. The curriculum of Foundations of Civic Engagement assumes that effective engagement requires a balance between forms of attention and action and is used to organize the way democratic engagement methods are introduced to students (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011). The category of attention, extending from the democratic theory literature, includes what our faculty refers to as the techniques of engagement. We do not provide an exhaustive discussion of all the ways citizens can be attentive to public issues. We instead structure the curriculum to introduce students to three basic modes of public attention that align with our institutional mission and guiding principles: critical thinking, community problem solving, and civic dialogue. Critical thinking is discussed in terms of identifying and evaluating assumptions that contextualize engagement and community issues. Community problem solving, as a technique of engagement, is connected to critical thinking but is distinct by emphasizing the democratic processes, methods, and approaches associated with overcoming obstacles and challenges tied to cooperation and partnerships. The civic dialogue technique is presented in the course curriculum in relation to the extensive literature on the topic. Course curriculum is structured to encourage students to express civic dialogue in terms of (a) democratic equality and (b) deliberation. This understanding of civic dialogue is connected to relevant literature in this field (Fishkin & Farrar, 2005; Levine, 2011). The course material outlines how understandings of democratic equality require reciprocal acknowledgment of public voice and procedural mechanisms of inclusion to ensure substantive quality of deliberative forums. Although the techniques of
12. Attention and Action–•–87 Foundations of Civic Engagement Foundational Techniques of Engagement
Critical thinking Problem solving Civic dialogue
Foundational Elements of Engagement
Studied in Theory Course readings that highlight, problematize, unpack, and critique the purposes and processes of democracy
Associating Serving, Giving Leading
Applied in Practice Civic Engagement Project that cultivates partnerships that are reciprocal, mutually beneficial, and reflect an exchange of knowledge and resources Social, Political Economic, Moral Environmental
Evaluated in Theory and Practice Project proposal and oral defense Engaged scholarly product Final project reflection paper
Foundational Spheres of Engagement (Physical and conceptual)
Self, Community National, Political Global
Foundational Perspectives of Engagement
Figure 12.1 Southwest Florida Paradigm for Community-Engaged Scholarship
engagement are presented as distinct components in the curriculum, they intersect in both the theoretical and practical portions of the course. Many assignments require students to use the techniques of engagement to consider different dimensions of their engaged work. The techniques of engagement demonstrate basic strategies to be attentive to public issues within the engagement paradigm of our Foundations of Civic Engagement course. However, these techniques would make little sense if they were not connected to expressions of action. Our curriculum presents the concept of action to students in terms of the foundational elements of engagement. Faculty members highlight action in terms of associating, serving, giving, and leading. Associating is presented as the basic form of action tied to cooperation and coordination. Serving and giving are generally problematized within the curriculum as representing unidirectional relationships and transfers that, generally, fail to achieve the transformative goals associated with the methods of democratic engagement. Leading is generally expressed in relation to the purposes and processes of democratic engagement. Community-engaged leadership articulates a form of action that embodies interpersonal reciprocity, mutual benefit, an exchange of knowledge and resources, and is defined in terms of partnership. The foundational element of leadership is presented to students through the lens of democratic engagement announced by Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011). When the Foundations faculty members consider the overall theoretical and practical dimensions of the Foundations of Civic Engagement course, the “attention + action = engagement” formula is central to
course curriculum and design. In the Southwest Florida paradigm for community-engaged scholarship, the techniques of engagement represent theory and the foundational elements of engagement represent practice. Two additional dimensions are included in the curricular paradigm to account for the substantive and the individual subjectivity associated with the theory and practice continuum. The curricular and course design decisions that the Foundations faculty made assumed that civic engagement represents an umbrella concept that includes a series of engagements (Berger, 2011). Therefore, our curriculum accounts for this theoretical insight by discussing spatial dimensions of the practice, what we call spheres of engagement. The spheres account for both physical spaces (environmental, community, ecological) and theoretical spaces (ethical, social, political, economic), allowing students to identify the specific theoretical and physical spaces in which their engagement is performed. The theoretical arrangement of the spheres positions students to consider how spaces intersect and encourages them to think about community issues from an interdisciplinary perspective. However, some spheres, particularly physical spaces, have historically excluded citizens and community members from full recognition and participation. The faculty curriculum development team was particularly sensitive to how democratic processes and institutions have historically marginalized and excluded on the basis of race, class, and gender (Young, 2000). We wanted to ensure there was a curricular mechanism to account for identity politics within the methods of democratic engagement.
88–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
As a result, faculty expressed an analytical framework within the course structure that was desired to consider internal and external forms of exclusion within the democratic engagement process (Young, 2000). We highlight dimensions of recognition, inclusion, and exclusion within the democratic engagement method by connecting these issues to perspectives of engagement. The perspectives of engagement include the position in which one considers community issues, but they also provide a reflection point to analyze the internal coherence of the theoretical and practical structure of engagement articulated in the curriculum. Students are asked to consider community issues and the methods of democratic engagement from the perspectives of self, community, local-state, nation-state, and global. This provides a basic structure to consider how identity formations of race, class, and gender intersect with varying perspective levels and the methods of democratic engagement more generally.
Practical and Applied Framework The theoretical concepts of techniques, elements, perspectives, and spheres of engagement are the basis of the course objectives (Appendix A) and are integrated into course assignments and lessons, particularly the CEP. Here we describe how theory is brought to life in the proposal, action, and reflection components of the CEP (Appendix B).
Proposal: Brainstorming and Collaborative Development The first step in the CEP is the development of a collaborative proposal with a community partner, based on an identified need. The proposal and subsequent need are shaped through techniques of engagement and positioned from the community perspective (Delano-Oriaran, 2012; Jacoby, 1996). In the proposal paper, students identify a community issue, justify why it is worthy of attention, identify project objectives with a community partner, and craft an action plan that adheres to the principles of community engagement. The results of the project are required to include a scholarly component and leave a lasting impact. Students are charged to create a communityengaged scholarly product that addresses a specific need and that reflects a reciprocal, mutually beneficial, and sustainable relationship with a community partner. In our Southwest Florida paradigm, a community-engaged scholarly product includes the following elements: • tangible and measurable outcomes, • identification of community need that is determined through a negotiated and collaborative partnership, and • scholarly rigor that is connected to a service project.
One way faculty and students identify community issues is by accessing the institution’s online database of
community partners hosted by the Office of ServiceLearning and Civic Engagement. Community partners create an agency profile that outlines needs and engagement opportunities. This is designed to connect partnerships to the theoretical concepts of reciprocity discussed in the course. Our goal is that reciprocal campus–community partnerships will produce outcomes that are mutually beneficial for students and community partners. The office also performs regular site visits and co-hosts multiple civic dialogues to strengthen relationships and generate sophisticated engaged scholarly products. These intentional partnership-building efforts increase the impact and longevity of the scholarly products. Next, students brainstorm with their community agency ways to co-develop an action plan to address the issue and specific needs. The course curriculum and theoretical structure inherent in the assignment connects the partnership process to the methods of democratic engagement. The Southwest Florida paradigm for community-engaged scholarship defines the methods of democratic engagement as the scholarly procedure and process individuals use to form partnerships based on democratic equality. Students then present a visual and oral presentation on the action plan in which they are asked to (a) identify the methods of democratic engagement used to define the parameters of the partnership, (b) explain why their intended community-engaged scholarly product/CEP is a justified response to the identified community issue, and (c) defend how their project will have lasting impact and how the lasting impact will be expressed in relation to the community-engaged scholarly product. This presentation provides a platform for feedback, ensures preparedness and early planning, allows for a strong action plan prior to implementation, and assists in the development of a classroom community. The theoretical elements that inform the course design and content are continually affirmed and referenced during the defense stage of the Civic Engagement Project.
Action: Project Development and Execution The action-driven project portion of the CEP is where theory intersects practice. Students understand, apply, and evaluate the perspectives and spheres of engagement through the execution of the project. They also analyze the foundational elements and techniques of engagement. To ensure accountability, feedback, and open lines of communication, faculty members are encouraged to collect evaluative feedback from community partners at the midpoint and conclusion of the project. Community partners have the opportunity to participate in project brainstorming and are asked to complete a written proposal agreement form with their student team to ensure that a collaborative and mutually beneficial action plan has been developed. Community partners are encouraged to provide
12. Attention and Action–•–89
feedback on student professionalism, passion, engagement, project effectiveness, and the students’ ability to use critical thinking skills and demonstrate sensitivity to different perspectives. The evaluative tool provides a scoring system for community partners to rate students individually and a space for general group and project feedback. The benefits of these checkpoints include early awareness of concerns and the opportunity to correct problems before they become too complex. In addition, student accountability and honesty among teammates is increased. The applied nature of the community engagement project helps students and participating community partners bring life to the purposes and process associated with democratic practice.
experience to coursework, (c) enhancing the development of civic skills and values, and (d) assisting students in finding personal relevance in the work (www.compact.org/ disciplines/reflection/index.html). The learning experience comes full-circle when students consider dimensions of the reflection essay; the assignment encourages students to consider their project through the lens of theory announced by the methods of democratic engagement. Students also participate in exit interviews, in-class presentations, and a university-wide Community Engagement Day Showcase and are required to submit service-learning verification forms, self- and peer evaluations, and community partner evaluations.
Reflection and Evaluation
Conclusion
The National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE) notes that “An effective [service-learning] program provides structured opportunities for people to reflect critically on their service experience” (Giles, Porter Honnet, & Migliore, 1991, p. 24). The reflection essay is designed to develop deeper understanding of theoretical and course content (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Jacoby, 1996; Prentice & Robinson, 2010; Sax & Astin, 1997), of ethical obligation associated with community-engaged leadership (Hatcher, 1997), and general understandings of civic mindedness (Steinberg, Hatcher, & Bringle, 2011). Students complete an individual reflection essay after completing the actiondriven portion of the project (Appendix B). This structured reflection essay was constructed with the best practices of service-learning pedagogy in mind (Ash & Clayton, 2009; Ash, Clayton, & Atkinson, 2005; Brooks, Harris, & Clayton, 2010). The term structured reflection is used to refer to a thoughtfully constructed process that challenges and guides students in (a) examining critical issues related to their service-learning project, (b) connecting the service
Attempts to institutionalize and achieve higher education’s civic mandate have taken a range of forms. The next wave of institutionalization will focus on developing academic and credentialing programs focused on community change and connected to the methods of democratic engagement (Butin, 2010). Instead of developing a foundational course around canonical texts, the emerging field of community engagement can be designed around the methods of democratic engagement. By emphasizing the methods of democratic engagement, the emerging discipline values a range of knowledge sources and maintains the ability to include different ways of knowing; the canons of community engagement will rest on principles and methods associated with democratic engagement. The Southwest Florida paradigm for community-engaged scholarship provides the theoretical structure for a foundational course in this emerging academic discipline. The key feature of this paradigm is that it is interdisciplinary, consistent with principles of community-engaged scholarship, and focuses on attention and action.
References and Further Readings
civic engagement. Working paper in the Center for Engaged Democracy’s Policy Papers Series. Merrimack College, North Andover, MA. Brooks, E., Harris, C., & Clayton, P. (2010). Deepening applied learning: An enhanced case study approach using critical reflection, Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 2, 55–76. Butin, D. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Davis, A., & Lynn, E. (Eds.). (2006). The civically engaged reader: A diverse collection of short, provocative readings on civic activity. Chicago, IL: Great Books Foundation. Delano-Oriaran, O. (2012). Infusing Umoja, an authentic and culturally engaging service-learning model, into multicultural education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 403–414.
Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 25–48. Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., & Atkinson, M. P. (2005). Integrating reflection and assessment to improve and capture student learning, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(2), 49–60. Berger, B. (2011). Attention deficit democracy: The paradox of civic engagement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boyer, E. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brammer, L., Dumlao, R., Falk, A., Hollander, E., Knutson, E., Poehnert, J., & Werner, V. (2011). Core competencies in
90–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in servicelearning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fishkin, J., & Farrar, C. (2005). Deliberative polling: From experiment to community resource. In J. Gastil and P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century (pp. 68–79). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Florida Gulf Coast University. (2014). Service-learning database. Retrieved from http://www.fgcu.edu/Connect/search.html Giles D. E., Jr., Porter Honnet, E., & Migliore, S. (Eds.). (1991). Research agenda for combining service and learning in the 1990s (pp. 24–25). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Hatcher, J. (1997). The moral implications of John Dewey’s philosophy: Implications for undergraduate education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1), 22–29. Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in today’s higher education. In B. Jacoby and Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 3–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, P. (2011). Deliberative democracy and higher education: Higher education’s democratic mission. In J. Saltmarsh & M. Hartley (Eds.),”To service a larger purpose:” Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education (pp. 154–176). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Prentice, M., & Robinson, G. (2010). Improving student learning outcomes with service-learning, Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2011). “To serve a larger purpose”: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Sax, L., & Astin, A. (1997, Summer–Fall). The benefits of service: Evidence from undergraduates. Educational Record, pp. 25–33. Steinberg, K., Hatcher, J., & Bringle, R. (2011). Civic-minded graduate: A north star. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1), 22–29. Young, I. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Appendix A IDS 3300 Foundations of Civic Engagement Course Objectives This course enables students to explore a number of questions of citizenship and civic participation through critical thinking, written assignments, group discussions, assigned readings, and practical engagement. By the end of the semester, students will 1. understand, evaluate, and analyze the foundational techniques of engagement, including critical thinking, problem solving, and civil dialogue; 2. understand, evaluate, and analyze the foundational elements of engagement, including associating, serving, giving, and leading; 3. understand, apply, and evaluate the perspectives (e.g., self, community, and global) and spheres (e.g., social, political, economic, environmental, and moral) of engagement; and 4. apply the foundational elements and techniques of engagement by creating and completing meaningful civic engagement projects.
Appendix B Civic Engagement Project Assignment Sheet Part I: Civic Engagement Project Proposal (200 points) 1. List group members and contact information (5 points) a. Include name, email address, and phone number for each member.
12. Attention and Action–•–91
2. Identification of a meaningful community-based issue to be addressed and justification of why this particular issue is worthy of attention (60 points) a. Define and analyze the issue to be addressed. (15 points) b. Gather, evaluate, and discuss information to deepen your understanding of the issue. Include citations within the body of your work and a works cited page at the end. (15 points) c. Provide a justification of why the identified issue is worthy of serving as the basis of your project. (15 points) d. Discuss how your project recognizes positions of privilege and expertise that intersect with aspects of identity, such as race, class, and gender. (15 points) 3. Identification of project objectives with community partner (45 points) a. Describe the ways local nonprofit, not-for-profit, and/or government agencies define and address the issue in Southwest Florida. (15 points) b. Generate project objectives with your community partner. (15 points) i. Brainstorm a full range of possible objectives for addressing the issue with your community partner. ii. Articulate a clear objective for your project. iii. Match the needs of the community partner with the talents, skills, and disciplinary backgrounds of your group members. iv. Explain the challenges associated with generating co-produced objectives with your community partner. v. Explain how your group will achieve the identified objectives. c. Explain how your project objective considers your issue at higher structural and systemic levels. (15 points) 4. Action plan (40 points) a. Include a calendar of planned activities through the culmination of your project. Include specific dates. (10 points) b. Clearly define the component of your project that your group designed with the community partner’s input and collaboration. (10 points) c. Explain how your engaged scholarly product will produce something that would not have otherwise happened. (10 points) d. Explain what results you will expect out of this project. What evidence will you provide to demonstrate your success? List at least three measurable and/or tangible deliverables that you will support with pieces of evidence at the conclusion of your project (such as articles, flyers, pictures, press releases, and survey results). (10 points) 5. Proposal presentation defense. Groups will defend their proposals in front of the class (50 points)
Part II: Civic Engagement Project Action (100 points) Points for this section will be awarded based on assessment of the quality and completion of your Civic Engagement Project. A final group presentation will be made detailing your actions. Describe the outcome of your project, including the measurable and tangible results you identified in 4.D of the proposal.
Part III: Individual Reflection Essay (200 points) Your reflection essay must include the following components: 1. Project Assessment (50 points) Provide an overview of your project that includes a summary of the issue you addressed. This evaluation should provide a full and authentic critique of the results of your project. Now that this project is complete, what steps have been taken to ensure that the community partner has the capacity and resources to move forward? 2. Roles in the Project (50 points) Clearly describe the contributions to the project that you made and that your group members made. This should include how each member used her or his talents, skills, and disciplinary background to contribute to the successful completion of the project. (25 points) 3. Theory to Practice (100 points) a. Select one of the foundational elements of engagement. Use the concepts in course readings as a lens to examine your civic project from various perspectives of engagement. Examine the theme within and across the spheres of engagement. (40 points)
92–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
b. Analyze the techniques of engagement in relation to your project. In your analysis, incorporate additional class experiences. (40 points) c. Based on your analysis, what are the implications for your future engagement practice? How is your academic program of study relevant to your emerging sense of civic self? How does your academic major and/or interdisciplinary background prepare you for an engaged life? Consider the perspectives and spheres of engagement in your discussion. (20 points)
13 COMMON GROUND THROUGH DIALOGUE Creating Civic Dispositions DARRYL MACE
NICHOLAS RADEMACHER
Cabrini College
Cabrini College
NANCY WATTERSON Cabrini College
O
ne of the pressing concerns informing servicelearning and civic engagement efforts today is how colleges and universities teach students problem-solving skills. One of the key approaches for addressing this concern is to work with undergraduate students to help them engage real-world issues in communities both on and off campus. This idea resonates forcefully with what our Cabrini College Living and Learning Community (LLC) seeks to address: how to develop active citizens equipped for critical thinking and problem solving. As this chapter will explore, we use a variety of intentional pedagogies—that is, reflective and experiential teaching and learning strategies—to empower students themselves to become those “bridge-builders.” We open up to them avenues for active, informed participation in civic engagement, connect their experiences to issues of social justice, and foreground our college’s ethos of engaging with the common good. Fostering a culture of civic engagement requires a dedicated effort on the part of all constituents in higher education to bring about transformation in learning at all levels and across all disciplines. The call for renewing civic participation is touted not solely by faculty and staff at colleges and universities but also reinforced by the
presidents of these institutions. Civic literacy, driven by the practice of civic arts, including deliberative dialogue, respectful listening, multiple perspectives, and productive encounters, needs to become an expectation for all students. This idea of active citizenship requires a disposition: an attitude or outlook reinforcing the need to engage responsibly within and across communities. It was just these kinds of principles that first informed the design of the Voices of Justice (VoJ) Living and Learning Community, a first-year experience initiative piloted at Cabrini College in 2007. Eager to help students foster their personal values in relation to ideas of responsible social justice and civic action, we three faculty (Drs. Nancy Watterson, Nicholas Rademacher, and Darryl Mace) believed that we could create a community of learners in an intentional way, designing all the components, curricular and co-curricular, so that they formed an integrated, interlocking whole. Civic engagement, centered on creating common ground through dialogue, would begin with the students’ immediate locality—the “place-based” learning first encountered with and among their fellow students and faculty on campus, and then would develop and widen to be embodied and enacted in communities beyond the campus bounds. 93
94–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Background/Literature Review For those interested in student engagement, whether that be through service-learning, community-based research, or civic literacies and practices, the first-year experience (FYE) stands out as an opportune moment, ripe for equipping students to become active participants in shaping their societies, their communities, their countries, and the world. To be sure, there is great variation in the scholarly literature about how students get “involved” in and across their campuses and just what student “engagement” means (Krause, 2005). In “Understanding and Promoting Student Engagement in University Learning Communities” (Krause, 2005), the author questions whether higher education personnel have sufficiently fleshed out the concept of “engagement”; they offer several complications (socioeconomic means, first-infamily status, diverse learning abilities, etc.) to the existing notions of college life. Others have examined quantitative data pointing to the need for integrative approaches to learning, getting students engaged by linking the various elements of their college experience (Reason, Terenzini, & Domingo, 2006). These questions and concerns are compounded further when they revolve around students in the FYE. Much has been written of late about the particular concerns of the FYE and how institutions of higher education can best facilitate students’ transition to college, engage first-year students so as to retain them, raise their level of critical inquiry and preparedness, improve their writing and oral communication skills, and teach them how to be in community (interacting with each other and willing to engage respectfully with others) (Reason et. al, 2006). Against this backdrop—detailing the specific challenges inherent in work with first-year college students—the scholarship of Living and Learning Communities has repeatedly offered viable solutions to these issues (Gebauer, Watterson, Malm, Filling, & Cordes, 2013; Lardner & Malnarich, 2008, 2009; Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, & Gabelnick, 2004; Van Slyck, 2008). By examining existing intentional communities, such as our Voices of Justice LLC, interested faculty, administrators, students, and student development personnel will find a wealth of valuable strategies for teaching students how to be in community with each other and arguably how to engage respectfully with others. An important subset to this primary focus is how institutions might also seek to integrate academic components, experiential learning, developmental advising, and community-based civic engagement with institutional mission. The VoJ LLC curriculum we present here views civic engagement as both a skill and a disposition, aiming to engage students with diverse perspectives and offering safe spaces for students to dialogue about theories and ideologies, life experiences, and real-world problems. Dialoguing skills can help both facilitate a disposition—an attitude or perspective from which behavior can evolve—and foster problem solving. These interlocking processes develop
students’ confidence and mindfulness, particularly when interacting in uncomfortable spaces—such as grappling with views and voices dissonant with their familiar worldviews. In these moments of dissonance, students are challenged to interrogate, rearticulate, and ultimately embody “their own social identity and location as well as those of others” (The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012, p. 43). Once students become more adept at working within their own living and learning communities, they may widen their scope of interactions beyond campus, readied to engage in mutual, reciprocal, and arguably more nuanced exchanges (Watterson, Rademacher, & Mace, 2012).
Practices and Methods Community-based, civically engaged learning drives our entire first-year experience, beginning with our own “crucible moment” (the title of a 2012 report from The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement)—an immersion trip to Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland. In preparation for the trip, we engage students in interfaith dialogue and storytelling exercises that position them to be participant observers who speak for their own disposition at the same time they are documenting their experiences (Ganz, 2007; Hornung, 2007). Through the trip, we set the framework for yearlong dialogue around ideas of faith, belonging, religion, and identities. During this three-day trip to museums, shrines, and monuments, we intentionally create snapshot moments and curricular prompts that we draw on throughout the entire year of coursework. We engage in dialogue around these moments, cultivating civic engagement through what we approach as civic “disposition.” Through this trip, we all learn more about ourselves by beginning the practice of being in meaningful relationship with others. The arts of civic engagement require practice in teaching and learning about how “the most effective communication rests upon deep listening and productive dialogue rooted in persistence, remaining open to seeing others’ worldviews,” or what is known in ethnography as an emic (or insider) perspective (Watterson et al., 2012). It is through the literal spaces we select to visit and through the conversations we frame that we attempt to raise student awareness of our three main ideas and approaches to critical inquiry: writing and speaking about disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, experiencing interfaith and cross-cultural expressions, and interrogating tensions that exist vis-à-vis faiths, races, ethnicities, religions, and folk/fine arts. Ultimately, we ask our students and ourselves to question who gets included in which narratives of religious traditions, faith systems, and American stories. At the same time, by discussing who “controls” which narratives—and from which positions of power and privilege—we are able to introduce the concept
13. Common Ground Through Dialogue •–95
of interrogating hegemony—that is, a framework for “unpacking” prevailing myths and assumptions. Admittedly, these concepts are at first a bit abstract, but in returning to these themes in each context, by the end of the weekend, students have some sense of the issues running as an undercurrent across the entire academic year. We also engage students more literally and physically. On each trip, for example, we work with students as they grapple with multiple approaches to “learning how to look,” with the literal and intellectual /interpretive contexts of the spaces we visit. Our particular stops on the trip vary over the years, and yet the conceptual framework remains constant. In each locale, we interrogate contributing factors that affect power, privilege, and difference (i.e., race, socioeconomic class, gender, and religion). We question how we move through and experience the space(s), and we document what we notice in these spaces. We may, for example, prompt the students as follows: How does this museum define itself based on any observable evidence and/or your extrapolations from specific facts? Or, we may ask them to take a closer look at individual artists and how each defines, labels, and/or represents herself or himself. Such fundamental exercises in critical thinking thus become a kind of “practice,” a habituated way of engaging. Central to the success of this trip is the ability of all to connect the experiences of a particular cohort to the learning that cohort will undertake throughout its first-year curriculum and co-curriculum. It is essential to recognize and highlight the collaborative, intentionally co-created “we-ness” of this immersion learning experience. For the very act of leaving the familiar confines of the college campus creates tension and disruption for all, thus, positioning all of us to learn alongside one another. Each year, each cohort, we create anew the crucible experience. Even before we venture to the specific sites, the immersion experience begins with improvisation (improv) training exercises through which we reaffirm the values of individual voice, collective interaction, and mutual respect. These mutually supporting skill sets are integral to creating common ground through dialogue, for our LLC revolves around an engagement with pluralism (Eck, 2006). Mutuality prepares us for active and confident engagement. Central to the improv session is the principle of “yes, and,” because responding to a situation—in the moment—with a “yes, and . . .” necessitates that participants are “adding something to the discussion” (Fey, 2011), not shutting down or precluding possible avenues for exploration. By intentionally naming and framing such improv strategies, we ask of our students and ourselves that we listen deeply, affirm others’ views, and build on those views to enhance the shared experience. For this day, and largely for the entire year, we all agree to limit, if not eliminate, the use of the words no and but, to “respect what your partner has created,” and thereby to at least start from an open-minded place (Fey, 2011). By setting a space where we can affirm everyone’s voice, everyone’s place at
the table, we boost individual confidence, promote respectful close-listening, and encourage everyone to speak from their own concrete positioning. Throughout the immersion experience, we rely on active engagement from our first-year cohort, ourselves, and our carefully selected group of LLC alumni who serve as peer mentors/classroom coaches for each of our five courses. This peer support model is most prominent in our one-credit College Success course that LLC students share during their fall semester. One of the cornerstones of our mission is leadership development, and our College Success seminar model stands as a prime strategy through which we empower an upperclass student leader through the role of peer mentor for the course. As part of this paid position, our peer mentors plan and lead many of the class meetings for our first-year student cohort. Through our peer mentors, our first-year cohort sees the mission lived out and begins to understand what is possible for students who succeed within the Cabrini College first-year experience. Peer mentors work alongside Dr. Mace, the VoJ academic advisor, to develop the curriculum for this course. Of particular note are two scavenger hunt modules that help to familiarize students with campus resources. On the first hunt, students team up and seek out various offices on campus that provide particular resources to the student body. At each office, these groups encounter clues that lead them to other key facilities on campus. This initial activity is fairly “surface level”; however, for the second scavenger hunt, the teams make appointments with key staff members in the previously identified offices and conduct an interview where they learn more about how these office staff serve the student body. Students begin to see how the various offices serve the espoused and enacted missions of the institution (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005). Moreover, first-year students are prompted to consider how they might work with and help to support these offices during their four years at the college. Through these scavenger hunts, our first-year LLC cohort begins to imagine how they fit into the life of the college, and, most importantly, they are challenged to imagine these offices and themselves through the lens of the college mission, rooted as it is in Catholic identity. Cabrini’s Roman Catholic identity, as well as the college’s mission to welcome learners of all faiths, cultures, and backgrounds, is vivified in Dr. Rademacher’s Faith and Justice religious studies course. Rademacher introduces students to conversations around “faith,” broadly understood, and works with them to establish the ground rules for dialogue. The theoretical discussion of faith provides students with a vocabulary to discuss meaning making around values and loci of power. The ground rules for dialogue create safe space for discussing controversial topics related to faith and justice. This vocabulary proves useful both during the immersion experience and, later, in their collaboration with Norristown Community House, an
96–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
intentional Christian community in a neighboring economically distressed county seat. Additionally, the principles of Catholic Social Teaching provide a common language for discussing justice-related issues as they arise. Early in the course, students read the first three chapters of James Fowler’s (1981) now classic text Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. Students learn that faith and religion are not synonymous. For Fowler, “faith” is a relational, imaginative process through which individuals and groups articulate what Fowler terms a “shared center of value and power.” Students are challenged to think about important relationships and communities to which they belong, including their new living and learning community and the college itself. For some students, a particular religious tradition may be included in their faith perspective. Other students do not affiliate with a religious tradition but identify other communities that provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose. In the religious studies course, we prepare for the potentially controversial discussions around faith by formulating ground rules for dialogue that draw on Maria Hornung’s (2007) Encountering Other Faiths: An Introduction to the Art of Interreligious Engagement. Students read and reflect on the ground rules that Hornung presents and then, alongside Rademacher, codify their own list of the most important elements of dialogue. Since faith, as defined by Fowler, is not exclusively linked to traditional religion, the class also explores issues of faith that apply to civil religion. This conversation examines assumptions about, and diverse beliefs in, the values and commitments that inform prevailing concepts of American identity, civic duty, and personal participation in public life. As a helpful resource, students read the classic article by Robert Bellah (1967), “Civil Religion in America,” in which Bellah describes civil religion as “a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals” that express the religious dimension of American life. Bellah acknowledges that biblical archetypes derived primarily from the Jewish and Christian belief systems underlie this civil religion. Nevertheless, he identifies the notion as “genuinely American and genuinely new . . . [with] its own prophets and its own martyrs, its own sacred events and sacred places, its own solemn rituals and symbols” (p. 18). While the themes of faith, justice, and civil religion help to frame the learning experiences as we tour various churches and memorials in the nation’s capital, these themes are elucidated further in Dr. Watterson’s Engagements With the Common Good course. Building on this model, Watterson models dialogue strategies through small group “think tanks” that ask students to brainstorm interpretations about a range of artistic artifacts from everyday, folk, and vernacular traditions. For example, students are asked to imagine and take on an emic, or insider, perspective, and they must collaborate to come up with multiple, viable,
respectful interpretations founded in evidence they can observe firsthand and then extrapolate from; the challenge is to not make unfounded or sweeping generalizations or unsupported claims and to weigh everyone’s contributions. All these skills are basic “moves” for critical thinking, creative reflections, and mutually supportive exchange that will stand the students in good stead throughout the rest of their courses in the LLC. On the immersion trip, students are asked to enter into dialogue with expressions of the sacred—both explicitly religious and civil. This “dialogue-ing” takes various forms: written, oral, embodied; these skills are particularly salient in Watterson’s writing and research-intensive seminar. This class, taught in the fall, draws on the “They Say/I Say” methods put forth by composition specialists Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein (2009) in their textbook by that name. Thus, students learn early on both the discursive practices of “yes, and . . .” (from our immersion trip) and this second layer of engaging with sources: creative, responsive, and inclusive forms of engagement with others’ voices—practices of negotiation and analysis that seek to welcome multiple views and voices into discursive moments and learning processes, all of which arguably help increase students’ grasp of “equity” (Lardner & Malnarich, 2008, 2009) and the “triangulating of differences” (Cornwell & Stoddard, 2006). Through creative and critical thinking and writing, we underscore how and where students can (and do) become part of a dialogue with and among sources—experiences amplified in spring term through a variety of learning methods, performance tasks (Chun, 2010), and “reacting to the past” modules. In our final “exit interviews” conducted with each student at the close of our year-long LLC experience, our students name for themselves moments that have mattered most to them over the course of their first-year experience: central among them being the immersion trip to DC, their experiences in learning to dialogue, and the roles they stepped into (literally and figuratively) with the performance tasks and role-playing exercises. The resounding message? That our students do emerge feeling empowered, understanding that their voice matters in many settings: residential and communal, expressed in writing, videotaped and shared publicly, avowed in smaller interpersonal moments of living and learning together. Students embody these skills and this confidence in their own voice, their own place at the table. They persist as vital members of the campus community; they step into leadership positions; they employ close listening and dialoguing skills; and they move on to be the bridgebuilders. Now six years into our VoJ experiment, we are convinced of the value-added nature of our curricular and co-curricular experiences, which are grounded in dialogical, experiential, mission-based models preparing students to be in right relationship with themselves and with the broader community.
13. Common Ground Through Dialogue–•–97
Resources Engagements with the Common Good, www.cabrini .edu/Academics/Core-Curriculum-Justice-Matters A four-year, four-course sequence that raises awareness of social problems, explores their root causes, involves students hands-on in social justice issues, and connects the theory and practice of social justice to each student’s major. Norristown Community House, http://norristowncommunity.webs.com College students and recent graduates who live at the Norristown Community House, an intentional Christian community in Norristown, PA, commit to service with partner organizations. Norristown Community House also offers volunteer opportunities and educational opportunities for nonresidents. Reacting to the Past, http://reacting.barnard.edu Reacting to the Past (RTTP) is a curriculum designed to immerse students in past events and engage them in
References and Further Readings Bellah, R. N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96(1), 1–21. Burghardt, W. J. (2004). Justice: A global adventure. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Chun, M. (2010). Taking teaching to (performance) task: Linking pedagogical and assessment practices. Change, 42(2), 22–29. Cornwell, G. H., & Stoddard, E. W. (2006). Freedom diversity and global citizenship. Liberal Education, 92(2), 26–33. Eck, D. (2006). From diversity to pluralism. In On common ground: World religions in America [CD-ROM]. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from the Pluralism Project website: http://pluralism.org/pluralism/ essays/from_diversity_to_pluralism.php Ehrlich, T. (1999). Presidents’ declaration on the civic responsibility of higher education. Retrieved from http:// www.compact.org/resources-for-presidents/presidentsdeclaration-on-the-civic-responsibility-of-higher-education/ Fey, T. (2011). Bossypants. New York, NY: Reagan Arthur Books. Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Ganz, M. (2007). Telling your public story: Self, us. now. Retrieved from http://www.wholecommunities.org/pdf/ Public_Story_Worksheet07Ganz.pdf Gebauer, R., Watterson, N., Malm, E., Filling, M., & Cordes, J. (2013). Beyond improved retention: Building value-added success on a broad foundation. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 1(2), 1–25.
ideas through the use of historical documents and role playing. Begun in the 1990s at Barnard College, it has since spread to colleges and universities around the country. Voices of Justice Living and Learning Community, www.cabrini.edu/Student-Life/First-Year-Experience/ Living-and-Learning-Communities/Voices-of-JusticeLiving-and-Learning-Community This first-year, residentially based living and learning community at Cabrini College began in 2007. Classroom assignments model effective oral and written communication skills that encourage dialogue—interfaith, interreligious, deliberative dialogue—to assist students in practicing how to engage in democratic, meaningful, and transformative discussion. Engaged pedagogies encourage students to seek out multiple views and voices as they explore answers to thought-provoking questions, such as follows: What is “responsible citizenship”? What are diverse ways to promote human rights and dignity, and what is our role and responsibility to do so through community-based collaboration?
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2009). They say, I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Grant, H., & Stodard, E. W. (2006). Freedom, diversity and global citizenship. Liberal Education. 92(2), 26–33. Hornung, M. (2007). Encountering other faiths: An introduction to the art of interreligious engagement. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Krause, K. -L. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. In Sharing scholarship in learning and teaching: Engaging students, James Cook University Symposium, Townsville/Cairns, Queensland, September 21–22. Retrieved from http://cshe .unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/teaching_in_practice/ docs/Stud_eng.pdf Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Whitt, E. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lardner, E., & Malnarich, G. (2008). A new era in learning community work: Why the pedagogy of intentional integration matters. Change, 40(4), 30–37. Lardner, E., & Malnarich, G. (2009). Assessing integrative learning: Insights from a national project. Journal of Learning Communities Research, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.evergreen.edu/washingtoncenter/docs/ JLCRarticleGMandEL.pdf Law, A., & Mennicke, S. (2006). A notion at risk: Interrogating the educational role of off-campus study in the liberal arts. Frontiers: The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad. Retrieved from http://webby1.cc.denison.edu/academics/ offcampus/frontiers%20xv2007–08%20%20-%20law%20 mennicke.pdf
98–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT McIlrath, L., & Mac Labhrainn, I. (2007). Higher education and civic engagement: International perspectives. New York, NY: Ashgate. Reacting to the past (2013). Retrieved from http://reacting .barnard.edu/. Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Domingo, R. J. (2006). First things first: Developing academic competence in the first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 149–175. Retrieved from http://topaz.educ.psu.edu/ educ/parsing-project/.pdf%20documents/FirstThingsFirst .pdf Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http:// www.aacu.org/crucible Van Slyck, P. (2008). Classroom strategies for learning community faculty: Situated knowledge for global citizenship. In Diversity, educational equity, & learning communities (pp. 61–78). Olympia, WA: Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. Voices of justice. (2012). Radnor, PA: Cabrini College. Retrieved from the Cabrini College website: http://www .cabrini.edu/Academics/Living-and-Learning-Communities/ Voices-of-Justice—Living-and-Learning-Community .aspxdoi Watterson, N., Rademacher N., & Mace, D. (2012). Foregrounding relationships: Using deliberative dialogue and engaged justice in a living and learning community. Journal of College and Character, 13(2), 1–8.
14 SERVICE-LEARNING, VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION-AS-ACTION, AND THE CALL TO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
T
NED SCOTT LAFF
JOYCE FIELDS
Augustana College
Columbia College
he intent of this chapter is to explore how Columbia College, a women’s college in Columbia, SC, revised its standard sophomore service-learning course and added a junior course to create a required “core-within-the-core” experience to foster a disposition toward civic engagement in its students. Columbia College has more than a 150-year commitment to providing access to liberal education for women from all backgrounds. Unique in its demographic breakdown, the college reflects the racial breakdown in the state, with more than 45% of its enrollment women of color. As a Methodist-affiliated college, its mission is a commitment to social justice and preparing women for leadership in a state with few women in leadership roles. Given the socio-cultural background of our students, many arrive on campus living in a socially diverse setting for the first time. Many have never had to live with or collaborate with those from various racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic backgrounds, sexual orientations, or from other diverse backgrounds. The institution is guided by the American Association of Colleges and Universities Bringing Theory to Practice Project’s critical question: “What do students get out of their course participation?” (Finley, 2012). The question we asked ourselves, after formerly running the courses, was whether we could create a campus-wide experience that would foster civic engagement in our students. Could we embody the nature of liberal learning and have our students reflect on their own personal ethos as they reflect on the nature of social justice in real ways? Could we do
this in our standard service-learning course if we integrated students’ “lives-as-texts” into our pedagogy? We believed if we moved in this direction, we could create a sustaining experience for our students that would have a transformative effect on our students and foster in them ethical and civic commitments they would carry forward into their daily lives as well as into their careers. This chapter outlines the approach used in realigning the pedagogic strategy in the Sophomore Seminar service-learning course and incorporating a twist on service-learning in the Junior Seminar course.
The Concept of the Courses Both the Sophomore and Junior seminars are interdisciplinary, crafted around a common theme, common learning outcomes, and problem-based learning. Faculty members have the flexibility to design the course content of their section around their areas of interest. The Sophomore Seminar focuses on gender, diversity, and social justice and incorporates service-learning. Students look at gender and diversity through the lenses of the social contract, its flaws, and problems raised by “justiceas-fairness.” Service-learning challenges students to focus their learning around the “fuzzy problems” that surface experientially. The reflective prompts are designed to challenge students to use their lives-as-text as a comparative base so as they reflect on service-learning, they are also 99
100–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
tasked to critically explore their own social norming, how that norming impacts how they view their world, and the social environment in which they live. The Junior Seminar explores leadership for social change. Students are challenged to design their own service-learning project. They explore the ethical dilemmas in the relational models of leadership and the problem of mobilizing social resources to effect change. Students must develop a servicelearning project that engages them in ethical decision making and the problematic nature of leading any type of change—even if leading for social change is change within their own lives. Students’ “lives-as-text” become components of the course. Planning the seminars this way seems to foster a genuine disposition to civic engagement. Although we think about what we do to engage our students, it is another thing to think about how students are affected by our courses and how they embrace the concept of civic engagement. What may be true for us may not be true for our students. “We cannot say for certain that there is a relationship between what we perceive in what we teach and the lives our students lead” (Laff, 2005, p. 8). Gerald Graff (2003) warned us of this. Our students are very good at “doing school.” Doing school well does not mean our students engage in deep learning or develop the “quality of mind” that enhances their ethos for civic engagement. We believed this “quality of mind” comes into our students’ experience as they begin “living in the problem” when service-learning links the “fuzziness” or the “gray” in the black and white of day-to-day experience to what we teach in class. The “core-within-the-core” is designed so that students first engage in service-learning and then create a service-learning project. Preliminary data suggest students in the seminars experience an internal redirection deepening their sense of self and ethical commitments. Students have expressed a feeling of involvement with something greater than themselves and a sense of personal efficacy and a deepening sense of personal values. The preliminary data suggest students were engaging in vocational reflection, fostering a disposition toward civic engagement.
Philosophic Underpinning Before we explore the structure of the seminars, it is important to discuss the central philosophic themes that guided our thinking. Research has established that servicelearning can foster civic engagement, but this is not simply a matter of fitting an appropriate service-learning experience into our courses. How we connect service-learning and the reflective prompts in a way that challenges students to reflect on their own lived experiences is critical. Students engage in a three-part process of looking at “troubles” and “issues,” comparatively reflecting on the “troubles” they see through their service-learning, and
reflecting on “troubles” in their own lives. They then assess the interplay between these perceived personal “troubles” and the perceived wider social “issues” from which such troubles evolve and which they, in turn, impact. These connections lead students to develop a commitment to civic engagement.
The Sociological Imagination Embedded within any service-learning experience is what Mills (1959) has called “the sociological imagination.” As Hoop (2009) has argued, the sociological imagination is the “best expression of sociology as liberal learning” (p. 48). Mills argued that the sociological imagination challenges us to develop ethical, moral, and intellectual skills to reflect on how society has influenced our “personal histories.” The sociological imagination “is a quality of mind that seems most dramatically to promise an understanding of the intimate realities of ourselves in connections with larger social realities” (Mills, 1959, p. 15). The sociological imagination works between “the personal troubles of milieu” (the socio-historical settings in which we live personally) and the “public issues of the social structure” (Mills, 1959, p. 11). “Troubles” happened to us within our immediate relations with others, our social life, and our social settings and the intersections of “normings” that come within those social settings. This is, as Mills argued, the interface between how our biographies and the socio-cultural and historical moment in which we live, how we are affected by this interface, and how this interface shapes our personal experiences (Mills, 1959, p. 8). “Issues” are those matters transcending our immediate social setting. An issue involves a “crisis in institutional arrangements” (Mills, 1959, p. 9). As such, issues are a public matter, such as economic disparity, discrimination, cycles in the housing market, educational opportunity, affirmative action, and others. The sociological imagination reflects on how these “issues” impact us as “troubles.” For Mills, the sociological imagination is how we become aware of the ways in which “institutional arrangements” and the “socio-historical milieu” impact and affect our lives. Service-learning provides students the experience to work with Mills’s sociological imagination. Through service-learning, students engage in ill-structured, “fuzzy” problems—a key element in problem-based learning— that our community partners engage daily. Students are tested by how they become “aware of the idea of social structure and to use it with sensibility . . . to be capable of tracing such linkages among a great variety of milieu” (Mills, 1959. pp. 10–11). This is critical if we claim that our students enhance their penchant for civic engagement.
Students’ Lives-as-Texts Hoop (2009) argues, however, we cannot assume that students will just develop their sociological imaginations
14. Service-Learning, Vocational Exploration-as-Action, and the Call to Civic Engagement –•–101
through service-learning. Hoop points out that as much as our students might engage with service-learning experiences, they may not be engaging in ways that task them to develop their “sociological imagination” (p. 53). Students must learn to connect themes and concepts from our courses to service-learning through reflection as course activity and through prompts that challenge them to do the same for their own “biographies.” Mills, as Hoop argues, would want faculty to consider how students begin to learn and exercise that “quality of mind” in an immediate way as they look at the two-way relationship between “troubles” and “issues” so that it speaks also to their lives (p. 54). Hoop argues to embed students’ lives-as-texts into service-learning courses. This challenged the faculty to rethink how to craft reflective prompts. Faculty members want students to reflect on their experiences with our community partners using class concepts to better understand the dynamics at play that community partners are trying to address. Integrating students’ lives-as-texts required faculty members to reshape prompts to create a contrastive interplay. We pose a problem to our students to see whether they can stand back from their individual perspective, by asking them to look at the social and cultural norming and influences that shape their own assumptions and expectations and how the norming influences shape the expectations they craft for themselves. Students see how their normings influence and affect the expectations they have of others as well. The service experience presents the contrastive opportunity for this type of self-reflection.
Overview of the Courses The Sophomore and Junior seminars are part of Columbia College’s core curriculum. In each course, students bring a different base of core learning and field of study, as well as the plurality of their lives-as-texts. They are put into a problem-based learning dialectic and realize they have to think with ethics; to think with public policy; to think with gender, diversity, cultural studies; and to think with religious studies. They learn to use literary studies and communication studies to explicate narratives and understand framing that creates symbolic interaction. And, they learn how to use their “lives-as-texts” as a first step toward understanding the dynamic interplay between troubles and issues through case studies and in understanding their own lives. Because the courses build off each other, our students build on their experiences and mature through the sequence. The Sophomore Seminar challenges students to look at their individual perspectives by reflecting on their own norming and how that norming shapes and influences the way they look at problems and affects the way they understand their experiences. Students learn how their norming shapes the expectations others have for them and the expectations they have for others. Their individual perspective is rooted at Mills’s level of “trouble.” We ask them to step back
from their individual perspective and enter a dialectic in which they learn to test their thinking against the thinking of others. Through this process, students begin to think about how “troubles” reflect “issues” and to consider how to collaboratively problem-solve at the level of Mills’s “issues.” The Junior Seminar designs the learning encounters so students must use their sociological imagination from the Sophomore Seminar to think through cases studies that reflect their lives-as-text (Laff, 2005, p. 13). Students begin to sense that ethical stances need to be tempered with a sociological stance: that in looking at affirmative action in college admissions, favoring grades and testing is tempered by asking whether opportunities are equal across all schools; that claiming almost half of Americans do not pay taxes on their federal tax returns is tempered by looking at what median income means and how taxes are actually collected; and that arguing about the Affordable Care Act is tempered by regarding our personal ethical duty to live a healthy life (Singer, 2009). Students realize they and people they know personally are experiencing “issues” we discuss in class as “troubles” in their lives. Using a multidisciplinary problem-solving approach to the case studies, students learn to unpack the cases carefully, such as “can one be morally opposed to abortion but be prochoice?” They also learn how to bring their learning to bear on cases they have not seen in class. In engaging each other, students realize negotiating shared understandings is not simply about respecting difference and divergent worldviews. It means bending their worldviews and adjusting the way they categorize experience through a mutual understanding that arises “when we use a gestalt from one domain of experience to structure experience in another domain” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 230). Students experience how to step from their individual perspective into a civic perspective.
The Sophomore Seminar The Sophomore Seminar introduces students to the central themes, debates, and issues that inform gender, diversity, and social justice. The course explores current issues and debates central to social justice and equal/human rights movements nationally and globally. Through problembased learning, students consider the intersection of race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and gender as it relates to perceptions of self and others. From this common frame and common expected learning outcomes, faculty members design their course section. Regardless of the variation between course sections, the common frame provides students with comparable learning experiences.
Course Goals Faculty members use service-learning to foster deeper learning to enhance students’ commitment to civic engagement: to develop commitment to socially responsible
102–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
leadership; and to develop commitment to civic engagement as defined by social and political awareness. Success in the seminar is evidenced as students appear to move from a position of personal complacency to a position of discomfort with existing social and political constructs. Students begin to question their social norming through the academic study of social justice and seeing how those norms play through their service-learning experiences and in their own lives. To drive this questioning, students complete six reflective prompts at regular intervals throughout the semester. Content of the prompts varies by course section, but the template is the same: Students use class material to reflect on the relationships between troubles and issues they see in their service experience and compare and contrast what they see as they also reflect on their own lives. The recommended text for the course is Michael Sandel’s (2009) Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do, and the thematic problem is, “What’s the right thing to do?” Sandel’s text easily sets the stage by challenging readers to think about social justice theory in the relevant social contexts: same-sex marriage, affirmative action, the right to commodify personal body parts, abortion, and gun control. Understanding the philosophic basis of social justice allows students to personalize public debate and question their own stance when faced with these same complex social situations. This creates discomfort, and the discomfort creates success in the seminar. Students cannot help but enter a dialectic in which their thinking is tested against the thinking of others, requiring them to consider their own norming and biases.
Charting the Course The Sophomore Seminar begins with an outline of John Stuart Mill’s (1806–1873) utilitarianism. Mill provides three concepts emblematic to most students’ understanding of American opportunity: Communities optimize their potential when members are joined in shared pursuits and values are held in common; individual goals are inextricably bound to the goals of the whole; and maximum utility is achieved while doing no harm. This is a comfortable and familiar position. But when Sandel’s (2009) interpretation of social justice is added to the mix, ensuing conversation points out the problems with utilitarianism: The utilitarian approach has two defects: First, it makes justice and rights a matter of calculation, not principle. Second, by trying to translate all human goods into a single, uniform measure of value, it flattens them, and takes no account of the qualitative differences among others. (p. 260)
Students begin to realize that “trying to do the right thing” is messy. As they engage the dialectic between Mill and Sandel, students find their assumptions turned on their ears and begin to understand that conventional social
paradigms may not be applicable in all cases. They learn to question preconceived notions and justify an opinion. Students learn to find the firm ground for social curiosity and problem solving. Through Sandel, they explore the problematic nature of “what’s the right thing to do?” Conversations become sticky and powerful when students are required to reference their ideas with a theoretical stance. For instance, students are challenged to look at the HIV/AIDS epidemic through the lens of social justice. Most students thought they had clear ideas about the genesis of AIDS and were quick to blame its victims. When faced with the impact of cultural norming “views” on sexual behavior and socioeconomic disparities in the treatment availability for HIV/AIDS, students were astounded. When they faced homosexuality as a capital offense in some African nations, they were shocked. Similarly, students began looking at homelessness differently, moving from a position of distance and blame to interpreting the “issues” (e.g., the impact of subprime mortgages, the impact of job losses in the recession, and/or the impact of the wars on returning veterans) and their impact on individual “troubles.” Mill’s ideas about the common good and sense of community seemed to falter at this point. Students find that fairness assumes different parameters, and they learn to challenge preconceived assumptions rooted in their own life histories.
Doing Service-Learning The seminar embeds service-learning by integrating three perspectives. First is Paul Loeb’s The Soul of a Citizen. As Loeb (2010) argues, we need to understand that Rosa Parks’s great act of courage began not when she refused to give up her seat on the bus but in the decision to attend her first National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) meeting and get involved with the cause. Second, Howard T. Prince (2001) urges faculty “to create learning situations that allow students to put knowledge into practice and to experience the consequences of their actions through the reactions of others” (p. 13). Third, Carol Gilligan (1981a) noted that personal development is similarly rooted in “a continuing interplay of thought and experience” (p. 156). Each faculty member sought out community partners who would assist in collaboratively designing the servicelearning experience. Faculty wanted partners who would talk with students about the “issues” their organization faced and how those issues rippled into the “troubles” their clientele faced, and who would articulate ways students could further the mission and work of the partner organization. For example, the HIV/AIDS class worked with the local AIDS Life Support Network in various capacities such as networking with the Women with AIDS support group, visiting the prison and working with the HIV/AIDS population, or helping with campus HIV testing. The local homeless shelter afforded students opportunities ranging
14. Service-Learning, Vocational Exploration-as-Action, and the Call to Civic Engagement –•–103
from working on the dining line to scripting and leading tours of a “Day in the Life of the Homeless” as a fund-raiser for the center. Students feel the first stirrings of personal commitment as a significant private experience. While students interpret their academic experiences individually, they share their service experiences through reflective prompts. Students begin to understand themselves as part of “society” instead of critiquing “society” for the ills and successes of life. Their lives open to critical thought and personal examination. Their shared reflections through the prompts’ threaded discussions enrich each other’s contextual experiences. Students’ lives-as-text become part of the transformative experience through intimate personal illustrations they share through the prompts. The prompts are short and are kept fairly simple: “How is gender socialization evident in the population with whom you’re working?; how do you see this playing out in your life?”; “We talked about social and cultural capital. How does the lack of/or wealth of social and cultural capital impact choices about investing in education? How does your social and cultural capital affect you and your friends?”; “Sandel writes that ‘The affluent secede from public places and services, leaving them to those who can’t afford anything else (p. 266).’ Do you find yourself doing this in your own life? Have you found yourself avoiding public places and services that serve a diverse population? Do you think Sandel’s statement is characteristic of life in your hometown?”
Sample Student Reflections The student responses tended to confirm that through the course students began to consider their vocational calling to civic engagement. These reflections have been taken randomly from across the sections. They are unedited. But common among them is students exercising their sociological imagination and how that impacts their personal sense of civic engagement. One student reflected early in the course: My educational and career goals are in education. I hope to be an elementary school teacher in the near future. I have always believed that we are all called to serve and it is up to each to find ways to do so. Teaching is definitely a service field, but after this course, I know that this is not enough. There are so many people out there who need help but do not know how to get it or are afraid to seek it. I know this course has led me to a better understanding of myself and my position in society and that as a White woman I face challenges, but am also equipped with certain privilege. In the beginning, I felt guilty about such privilege, but now know that I should not feel guilty but instead use my privilege responsibly to help others.
At the conclusion of the seminar, one student reflected: Until being introduced to Sandel, (the homeless shelter), and this class, I was a “victim.” I never took the time to form
opinions of very important matters in our society or question the present. I either listened to what others thought about the topics or was ignorant to the fact. . . . Everyone views ideas differently. Not everyone is from the same town you are, lived the same life you have, or wore the same pair of shoes. Therefore, we are not all going to think alike. It is important to first understand this, appreciate it, and respect it.
The success of the developmental approach is evidenced in the writing of one student: Rather than accepting the ideas passed down to me, I now frequently question them. I am more accepting and openminded because of this. Even though society has its preconceived notions for gender, diversity, and social justice, that doesn’t dictate what I personally believe. This class has given me the perspective where I now have a choice. I can now choose to follow or not follow these teachings, and that has been the greatest lesson of my life.
After working at the local HIV/AIDS advocacy center, another student wrote: There are times when I have not interacted with people because I was against the lifestyle that they were choosing to live. I have learned that this is unjust. I wasn’t giving them a chance to get to know me or giving me a chance to get to know them. By doing so, I was having a negative impact on both of our lives and contributing to feelings of rejection many of these individuals face daily.
These students’ reflections mirror themes outlined by Zlotkowski (2006): engagement so that service meets a public good, reflection to challenge students to link their service to source content and to reflect on the value of service, reciprocity to ensure that the community partner is a “colleague” in teaching, and public dissemination to ensure that service becomes an opportunity for public dialogue. The students’ responses evince a marked growth in social development and personal growth, as well as a growing disposition toward civic engagement.
The Junior Seminar The Junior Seminar focuses on leadership for social change. It builds on the Sophomore Seminar but inverts the service-learning experience. Students consider the viability of servant leadership against the context of two relational leadership models (transactional and transforming). This triad is intentional. Students are hit immediately with the ethical dilemmas of justice-as-fairness and the problem of making policy decisions for the common good. They face looking at their own ethical commitments. The course also explores what sets the context for social change, and this proves to be critical. Finally, students have to use the work in both seminars to create a service-learning project. Students work with the problematic “messiness” of
104–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
trying to build collaboration with community partners and mobilizing social resources to ensure the success for their project.
Course Goals The course learning outcomes require students to distinguish among different ethical principles, rights, and values from the points of views of various stakeholders. Students are asked to address case studies on decision making for the common good. Students quickly discover that decision making for the common good is not simply about “just do the right thing.” They recognize immediately in class discussion their different academic, socioeconomic, cultural, and racial/ethnic backgrounds surface when they pull their claims from their lives-as-texts to warrant their arguments. The thematic problem for the course comes from what faculty call the “Gates Foundation question,” loosely based on a promo aired daily on National Public Radio: “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, dedicated to the belief that all people have the right to live a healthy and productive life, guided by the belief that all life has equal value.” The question faculty members pose to students is “Do you believe this?” This creates the “fuzzy” problems that drive the course. For instance, students are asked how to define “have the right” and how to define “a healthy and productive life.” What influences one’s thinking about what it means to have a “right,” and what it means to live a healthy and productive life? If we agree on a definition, then can we agree on what is the “right thing to do” to provide opportunity for a healthy and productive life? What would we give up from our lives to provide that opportunity? If we agree on what is “the right thing to do,” do we tell people what these changes are and how they should act, or do we try to help people understand the socio-cultural dynamics at play and then provide them tools to evaluate their cultural and social normings so they can act on their own behalf?
Charting the Course The course unpacks the “Gates Question” comparatively. The class explores the social contract through the eyes of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke (Social contract theory, n.d.), similar templates but influenced by different socio-historical contexts. Problems inherent in the social contract are raised using Locke, the language in the Declaration of Independence, and the common metaphor of “who is sitting at the table.” Justice-as-rational choice is explored through Rawls and Anderson’s differing perspectives about the nature of equality and the common good— luck egalitarianism for Rawls (1971/1999) and democratic egalitarianism for Anderson (1999). Through case studies, students examine the strengths and weaknesses in transactional, transforming, and servant leadership (Burns, 2003;
Greenleaf, 2002) and how to craft a balance among the three. Students then test this balance looking at social change for the common good as emergent, transformative, and projectable outlined by Reeler (2007). Students learn that social change does not have to be a step forward by exploring dynamics of cultural lag and NIMBY (not in my back yard). Throughout, students are reminded that they must be considering the intersectionality of socioeconomic class, race and ethnicity, gender, age, cultural dynamics, and their own normed biases. The frame lends itself easily to faculty interest across the curriculum. The case studies used are at the discretion of the faculty teaching sections of the course, allowing faculty to tailor the course—faculty have looked at issues in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines, women in the arts, advocacy in developing countries, environmental issues, and more.
Creating Service-Learning Projects Students, in teams of four, are assigned to create a service-learning project. The assignment is simple: “Develop a service-learning project of your choice that is viable, meets a community need (the common good), and is sustainable.” This experience creates a level of immediacy that could not be achieved in the course alone. Each team decides on the community need they will address. Themes come from their own lives-as-texts and directly address Mills’s relationship between “troubles” and “issues.” Students have to agree to their roles within the team, and once this is done, they have to realize their commitments to each other and their shared goals. Then, students have to engage their community. They experience the need to craft a personal leadership style to work with community partners to design collaboratively a program that meets community needs, mobilizes broader community support, and the community itself can implement. Students outline community demographic profiles and asset maps. They identify and meet with community stakeholders, listen to their perspectives and needs, and develop an understanding where they can contribute to the stakeholders’ needs. Students have to consider program design, program delivery, resourcing needs, and desired outcomes within the context of their community partners. They consider sustainability in relationship to their community partner’s goals. As important, students have to identify and address different levels of social and cultural resistance they would meet as outsiders in a community. Finally, students consider how to frame the project to mobilize community support to deliver the project with assessed outcomes. Students confront their own social and cultural assumptions. They learn collaborative communication with their community partners. They use their leadership skills to build a “coalition” with their community partners. Students realize how to work within the economic, social, and cultural
14. Service-Learning, Vocational Exploration-as-Action, and the Call to Civic Engagement –•–105
mores and constraints of a community if they hope to affect any type of contribution that could benefit the community’s common good.
Sample Students’ Reflections Prompts are patterned so that students must consider their own roles within the communities in which they live. For example: “We talked about the social contract and those who are not at the table. One of the ways this plays out is in institutionalized gender norming. How has this played out in your life?” “We often face situations when what is ethical is not congruent with what we have been taught is moral. Has a conflict like that happened to you when your social values conflicted with the ethical thing to do?” “As you reflect on leadership, ethical decision making, and the dynamics of social change, how will you develop your own philosophy of servant leadership, opening possibilities for yourself?” The student reflections show students’ movement from their awareness developed in the Sophomore Seminar into a growing disposition toward civic engagement. They sense that they opened to something larger than themselves. One student noted: I have signed my fair share of petitions and it all accounts for nothing. . . . I lacked confident [sic] to believe in the power of one. The presence of an opportunity eluded me. I found myself actually believing I can make a difference. I have the potential to change the educational system in South Carolina, I have the power to lobby for change in the gender discrimination in family courts, and I simply have the power to lead.
We can perceive in this student the building sense of selfefficacy that she created in herself. Creating a servicelearning project helped her realize that she could create her own opportunities. Another student noted: I no longer have to sit in the dugouts. I just have step up to the plate and swing at the ball. Home run or not, each swing brings me closer to a goal I did not know existed.
The metaphor seems apt for a student at a women’s college. Other students began to see themselves differently in their community: I no longer am embarrassed to reveal where I reside. I now believe that the expectations of the 29203 [ZIP code] community is only limited to my biases. I must also admit that “I got some nerve” to ostracize, be embarrassed of, or reduce my role of being a part of the 29203 community. I have taken from this class to have great pride in where you come from, who you are, where you’re going and how to utilize those skills, life experiences and education to become an effective, efficient servant leader. I have definitely progressed as a compassionate, empathetic, social, personal, and political cognizant human being from this class.
We witness in this students’ comments her first steps from an individual perspective into a civic perspective. Others did experience a “crisis” that challenged them to rethink their personal paradigms: I found this class hard to grasp at first because I was thinking about every issue from the black and white perspective, not discovering yet how I had been normed to do so. I started dealing with issues in the “grey” or “make it messy for ya” area. The challenging of a person comes with a certain risk. Either that person will become offended and deny the truth heading their way, or they will face it with open arms and kneel at the altar of humility.
Another notes: Talking and having conversations with the people in class has helped me tap into a different part of my brain more critically and logically. I think if we want things to change it would be best start with the community and work your way up.
Throughout the reflections, students demonstrated that the first step toward servant leadership is how they learn to lead themselves. Perry (1970) noted that when students engage a “pluralism of values and points of view,” they engage in an experience that fosters their ethical and moral development and their abilities to make personal commitments in a relative world (p. 35). This impact can be significant if the engagement is intentional and deliberate. Perhaps one of our students said it best: The experience has opened my eyes to different ethical arguments and how to apply them. And I have learned that all it really takes to spark a change is one pissed off woman. In learning how to improve myself, I can go out and apply what I’ve learned to the rest of the world to help others who are in my same position.
Conclusion We could fill pages with the student reflections, and the same themes would ripple through. What these comments point to is that our students’ experiences seemed to catalyze a fundamental change. Students experienced an internal redirection deepening their sense of self. They have expressed a deepening of their ethical commitments. They have expressed a feeling of involvement with something greater than themselves and a sense of personal efficacy. And, they have expressed a deepening sense of personal value. Service-learning can be transformative, and there is reason lurking in our claim. Our core-within-the-core design confirmed our anecdotal suspicions, our common sense, and our theoretical perspective. Service-learning is an open-ended encounter with learning. Perry (1971) notes that introducing students to the open-endedness of
106–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
service-learning we provide them a means “to orient themselves in the world through an understanding of acts of knowing and valuing that is more than intellectual and philosophical. It is a moral endeavor in the most personal sense”
(p. 54). Students begin to experience Gilligan’s (1981b) “ethic of care.” Fueling this starts with service-learning followed by students creating service-learning, taking them to the edge where their familiar and the unusual meet.
References and Further Readings
Loeb, P. R. (2010). Soul of a citizen: Living with conviction in challenging times. New York, NY: Martin’s Griffin. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. London, England: Oxford University Press. Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Austin, TX: Holt, Reinhart & Wilson. Prince, H. T. (2001). Teaching leadership: A journey into the unknown. Concepts and connections: A newsletter for leadership educators, 9(3), 3–13. Rawls, J. (1971/1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reeler, D. (2007). A three-fold theory of social change. Center for Developmental Practice. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from http://dmeforpeace.org/learn/three-fold-theory-socialchange-and-implications-practice-planning-monitoringand-evaluation Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. Singer, P. (2009, July, 15). Why we must ration health care. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes .com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t. html?pagewanted=all_r=0 Social contract theory. (n.d.). The Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/ soc-cont Zlotkowski, E. (Series Ed.). (2006). Service-learning in the disciplines (14 volumes). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Anderson. E. S. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287–337. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2011). Value: Valid assessment of learning in undergraduate education—Civic engagement VALUE rubric. Retrieved from http://www.accu.org/value/rubrics/civicengagement.cfm Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York, NY: Grove Press. Finley, A. (2012). The joy of learning: The impact of civic engagement on psychosocial well-being. Diversity and Democracy, 15(3), 8–9. Gilligan, C. (1981a). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C. (1981b). Moral development. In A.W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Press. Hoop, K. (2009). Students’ lived experiences as text in teaching the sociological imagination. Teaching Sociology, 37(1), 47–60. Laff, N. S. (Ed). (2005). Identity, learning, and the liberal arts. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15 BUILDING SERVICE-LEARNING INTO AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE Urban Civic Education JAMES MULLOOLY
STEVEN M. HART
California State University, Fresno
California State University, Fresno
C
alifornia State University, Fresno established a minor in urban civic education in 2012. This minor is the result of a 24-year evolution toward institutionalizing service-learning into the core of academic life at Fresno State. Service-learning at Fresno State traces its origins to a small program designed to promote volunteerism and community service among the students, staff, and faculty in 1988. The program, titled Students for Community Service (SCS), was established to supervise and coordinate all campus service endeavors. In 1994, California Campus Compact presented its first “Institutional Service Award” to Fresno State. Fresno State’s affiliation with Campus Compact, a coalition of more than 1,000 university presidents who are committed to civic goals in higher education, led to the establishment of the ServiceLearning Development Committee in 1995. This committee developed plans for further institutionalizing service-learning. In 1999, the Academic Senate at Fresno State approved guidelines for service-learning designated courses. In 2000, the State of California provided the California State University System with $2.2 million to stimulate the development of service-learning classes and help establish the infrastructure and incentives for the proliferation of service-learning designated courses. In 2007, Fresno State received the Carnegie Foundation’s Community Engagement Classification as well as a $3.5 million pledge to establish the Jan and Bud Richter Center for Community Engagement and Service-Learning. In 2008, Fresno State was awarded the Presidential Award
for Higher Education Community Service. In 2009, a ServiceLearning Subcommittee of the Academic Senate was established to review and formalize campus policies and procedures related to the development of high-quality service-learning coursework. In a seminal article about institutionalizing servicelearning, Dan Butin (2006) makes a compelling argument for housing service-learning within an academic discipline as a means of increasing the beneficial influence of this academic field as well as ensuring its future prosperity as a transformative pedagogical practice. In this chapter, we argue in support of this position by virtue of the philosophical legacy of pragmatism spanning from the foundational work of John Dewey (1904) through the empowering work of Paulo Freire (2005). We develop this argument through a description of a similar process that occurred in the field of anthropology, from a solely practitioner-oriented activism to a complementary development of applied anthropology as an academic discipline in its own right (Baba, 2009). We close this chapter with a description of how we achieved this objective on the campus of Fresno State, through the establishment of a minor in urban civic education.
Service-Learning as an Academic Discipline In this section, we describe our rationale for the importance of developing service-learning as an academic discipline. We then describe a complementary development of 107
108–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
activism and academic discipline creation in anthropology that has become the academic discipline of applied anthropology. This section closes with a description of some of the rudimentary concerns in this endeavor, namely, the financing, housing, and naming of an academic discipline.
Why a Discipline? American education is indelibly marked by pragmatism, a philosophical tradition of the late 19th century, whose primary proponents were Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and George H. Mead. Pragmatism maintains that “knowledge is derived from experience, experimental methods and practical efforts. . . . knowledge must be used to solve the problems of everyday practical affairs” (Angeles, 1992, p. 238). The influence of Dewey’s ideas on service-learning is the most prominent due to his interest in the philosophy of education. Earlier in his career, Dewey developed a convincing theoretical analysis of distinctions between application and theory in the education of qualified teachers. Dewey (1904) stated that in the formation of teachers, although the immediate goal is ultimately a practical one, the long-term goal should be more theoretical: providing teachers with an “intellectual method and material of good workmanship” (p. 787). Dewey was concerned that teachers in training should have a solid background in the theoretical significance of the subject matter that they were being trained to teach, so as to improve a teacher’s ability to transfer this knowledge. Overemphasis on the practical skills of a teacher would, according to Dewey, make an efficient workman but one whose workmanship might be lacking. However, it was not until the latter part of his career when Dewey (1958) more forcefully proposed the absence of any real distinction between application and theory. Dewey seemed to have moved closer to the perspective that the mere discussion of a dichotomy between practice and theory is part of the problem. Building on the workman metaphor that was stated before, Dewey concluded that all that finally matters is the quality of the work. This realization of the temporary or false dichotomy that had been created between application and theory nullifies the concerns of academics that consider an applied/ practical orientation as existing outside of the boundaries of academic disciplines. Furthermore, Dewey’s observation accommodates the possibility of a discussion about legitimacy and power, most poignantly developed by Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2005). Pushing the application and theory dichotomy to the point of breaking, Freire illustrates the abuse or oppression often disguised within this dichotomy and moves the discussion to a more unified, action-oriented position with the term “praxis,” which he defines as “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it.” (2005, p. 51). This praxis orientation not only legitimates the position of service-learning as an academic discipline, it also demands it.
Complementary Developments of Activism and Discipline Creation in Anthropology and Service-Learning Stocking (1995) points out the fallacy in the assumption that there is a clear developmental path whereby disciplines initially create practitioners who finally become professionals. Anthropology became a profession and a discipline only within the last 100 years. During the 19th century, anthropology comprised activities that would today be recognized as anthropological but at the time were considered to be hobbies of rich, classically trained, so-called practical men, or pastimes of missionaries and ships’ captains while overseas (Baba, 2009). Writing about the life of exotic “savages” or digging up the artifacts of ancient societies was the domain of amateurs, ideologues, and colonial administrators: Anthropology is a field that has been practitioner-oriented from its inception. The first generation of professors of anthropology naturally came from other fields. Three of the most well-known “fathers of modern anthropology” had not even been students of anthropology. Franz Boas had a doctorate in physics and carried out postdoctoral work in geography. Claude Lévi-Strauss studied law and philosophy and only became interested in anthropology after joining a cultural mission to Brazil. Finally, Sir James George Frazer studied classics and began to apply his analysis of belief systems on living (i.e., non classical) people across the world. In other words, three of the most famous professional founders of the discipline of anthropology were not products of their own discipline (McGee & Warms, 2011). Similarly, some of the founding theoretical principles of anthropology were adapted from early sociologists such as Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber, who themselves were students of law, philosophy, and history. (Morrison, 2004)
This illustrates Dewey’s (1958) point regarding the false distinction between application and theory in light of the creation of academic disciplines. This is no different for service-learning. There are many academic members of fields such as education, the social sciences, and the health sciences, who are laying the groundwork for the establishment of service-learning as a discipline, by virtue of the research they conduct, the conferences they attend, and the work that they do. In fact, it was these people and the “service designated” courses they developed that brought about the possibility of launching this minor in an era of budget cuts and other economic tensions, as discussed in the next section.
Financing an Academic Discipline Money is an essential component for the establishment of any academic field. For anthropology, luck came in the form of a shift in focus—from social welfare to social science that could improve social welfare—by the Laura
15. Building Service-Learning Into an Academic Discipline –•–109
Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation (Goody, 1995). In the 1920s and 1930s, the foundation made grants to American and British universities for the purpose of conducting research to correct the unscientific work of the “practical men” of the 19th century. Consequently, “a new model of professional anthropology emerged, with academically based anthropologists delivering both research and instruction, and with funding provided by an assortment of agencies through universities and other research-oriented institutions” (Baba, 2009, p. 328). Service-learning is poised at a similar point. Instead of Rockefeller funds, “Learn and Serve” grants from the Corporation for National Service (CNS) have played an important part in building the legitimacy of service-learning as an academic subject worthy of investigation. These CNS grants have funded a variety of research and service oriented activities, as well as have assisted in the founding of service-learning centers on campuses across the country (e.g., the University of San Diego’s Center for Community Service-Learning was launched in 1986; in 1994, the center received a grant specifically to support its course-based service-learning program; the same grant that funded the work to build our minor on the campus of Fresno State). The next step is to build on this solid foundation by means of what Evan Goldberg refers to as “lateral funding strategies,” whereby funding is pursued via well-established disciplines with service-learning funding lines as secondary to the primary project (personal communication, June 8, 2012). Many centers on campuses across the United States are focused on service, in some cases service-learning, but it is rare to find degrees in service-learning. Doctoral students of higher education may focus on service-learning as their topic of research, as one of these authors has done, but to date one cannot receive a doctorate in servicelearning. Furthermore, the center on our campus that is most known for accommodating service-learning is housed in the Division of Student Affairs. This is to say, it is peripheral to the “core activity” of a university, as is seen by the core rank-and-file tenure line members. Student Affairs, although utterly essential on college campuses, stands outside of faculty governance (and often faculty interest) for the most part. For example, although our campus has a service-learning committee that includes several faculty members, the person in charge of the agenda and meeting structure is an administrator and director of our service-learning center, the Jan and Bud Richter Center for Community Engagement and Service Learning.
Housing an Academic Discipline Other programs, such as women’s studies, faced similar uphill climbs in becoming a discipline (Butin, 2006). But as an illustration of our point, on our campus, the Women’s Resource Center is housed in Student Affairs, while the Program in Women’s Studies is housed in Faculty Affairs.
Butin (2006) makes a convincing argument for housing disciplines such as these in an existing yet polymorphous department such as community studies. Community studies, like cognitive studies or women’s studies, are emergent disciplines that happily welcome scholars from other disciplines. Disciplines that are based on topic, region, or methodologies typically comprise members of other disciplines until enough academics who are fully qualified in the given discipline have been granted doctorates in that discipline. A case in point is Fresno State’s “Entrepreneurship Program” that is made of up many faculty members from the College of Business who hold degrees in business and recently a newly hired assistant professor who holds a PhD in entrepreneurship. Following Butin’s reasoning (2006), we argue that it is essential to define a new discipline outside of existing disciplines, lest it suffers from criticisms of legitimacy based on claims that it is derivative. For example, one of us is a faculty member in a department of anthropology where members of the sociology department repeatedly jest that our discipline is merely a subdiscipline of sociology, due to important founding sociological theories at the root of many anthropological theories.
Naming an Academic Discipline Service-learning suffers from an assumption of antiintellectualism that many applied fields share (Ferguson, 1997). Ferguson (1997) describes this as the “evil twin” syndrome, whereby the practitioner/professional is considered a sellout as compared to the academic who is deemed legitimate. The discipline of education writ large often suffers from a similar critique. One of us is an anthropologist of education who has worked in both a department of education and a department of anthropology and can attest to these concerns. One effective way to introduce service-learning would be by packaging it with a different name. At Fresno State we have chosen to design a service-learning minor under the guise of civic education. When considering a name for this minor in service-learning, we were mindful of the regrets Conrad Arensberg made during his 1980 presidential address to the American Anthropological Association (1981). Arensberg, an eminent anthropologist and co-founder of the Society for Applied Anthropology, argued that including the words “applied anthropology” in the name of the association was a mistake. He lamented that in the early creation of a professional association that was singularly dedicated to applied anthropology, its name was chosen incorrectly. In a brief article on the subject (1981), Arensberg noted that at least the journal of his association had been named correctly. The journal name was Human Organization, and the association is called the Society for Applied Anthropology. According to Arensberg, by naming the association something that was indelibly linked to a practitioner or a
110–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
professional orientation, it historically, and to this day, repels many academicians (i.e., anthropology instructors). Similar to our civic education minor, four other recently launched minors avoided the use of “service-learning” in their titles: (1) State University of New York–Buffalo State—urban civic education, (2) University of North Carolina at Charlotte—urban youth and communities minor, (3) West Chester University—youth empowerment and urban studies minor, and (4) Wright State University—youth and community engagement. During a Learn and Serve twoweek retreat in Washington, D.C., that all of the founders of these programs attended, the strategy of intentionally avoiding the words “service-learning” was discussed (Westerhof et al., 2013).
Fresno State’s Minor in Urban Civic Education The final part of this chapter describes how the authors were able to achieve the full institutionalization of a minor in service-learning on the campus of Fresno State by developing a campus-wide interdisciplinary minor with the assistance of a grant from Learn and Serve America. The minor was formally launched in 2012 and brings together a variety of extant service-learning opportunities from across the curricular spectrum under the unifying theme of the betterment of urban education in Central California.
Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Community Partnerships Chambers (2009) declared, “collaboration has become a hallmark of many approaches to practice” (p. 374). Although stated with respect to applied anthropology’s progress toward academic legitimacy (van Willigen, 2009), this is equally true for service-learning (Connors & Seifer, 2005). Collaboration is essential to the mission of the Kremen School of Education at Fresno State, and faculty members participate in various partnerships with other faculty across campus in order to meet the needs of the Fresno community. The civic minor’s success is in part due to a wellestablished service-learning presence in the community and on campus. In the community, members of Fresno State have partnered with more than 200 community benefit organizations through service-learning and civic engagement initiatives. Several of these partnerships provide promising opportunities for service-learning experiences, directly linked with the goals of the civic minor as it develops. For example, the Fresno Center for New Americans, an organization that promotes family engagement and community-driven policies to improve educational opportunities for South East Asians, and the Boys and Men of Color Project, a mentoring program that
works to address social disparities among Latino and African American males, provide civic minor students with opportunities to explore innovative policies that encourage strong parent and community involvement in the shaping of children’s educational experiences. On the Fresno State campus, collaborative partnerships between faculty from the Kremen School of Education and the College of Social Sciences have established an important cross-disciplinary relationship. This profitable relationship has encouraged Fresno State’s institutional commitment to promote service-learning at the highest level. For example, the Academic Senate established a service-learning subcommittee that is composed of faculty from all schools and colleges across campus. As such, this committee is an established mechanism for knowledgeable faculty to collaboratively facilitate the design and evaluation of service-learning courses. Additionally, Fresno State is recognized as a Carnegie Community Engaged campus under the category of “Curricular Engagement and Outreach and Partnerships” (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, n.d.). Another example of this collaborative support is the Central California Children’s Institute (CCCI). This campus-wide collaborative endeavor is supporting the ongoing development of the civic minor by working to bring child-serving agencies and professionals together to learn from one another, unite around common goals, and work together to address challenges facing the region. CCCI faculty members represent various programs and departments from the Kremen School of Education and the College of Social Sciences, including Chicano and Latino Studies, Counseling and Special Education, Literacy and Early Education, and Public Health, among others. This collaboration benefited the development of the civic minor in two specific ways. First, the CCCI convenes regional community leaders to produce a policy agenda for addressing issues, such as poverty, teen pregnancy, gang involvement, and dropout rates. These agenda points helped shape the development of new courses and the content of existing service-learning courses. Second, the CCCI community leaders represent more than 75 health, human services, P–12 education, and child welfare organizations. Rather than spending time initiating partnerships with community agencies, those developing the civic minor have been able to focus on strengthening existing relations with CCCI members already collaborating with Fresno State, thereby providing natural extensions for SL opportunities. Fresno Unified School District (FUSD), the key P–12 partner in the civic minor program, is a member of the CCCI. As such, FUSD administrators share the vision for the agenda of the institute, which continues to facilitate the joint construction of SL courses and experiences of the civic minor while ensuring that such experiences are designed to address the identified needs of FUSD.
15. Building Service-Learning Into an Academic Discipline –•–111
The Civic Minor The minor in urban civic education is creating a unique approach to teacher preparation at Fresno State and is complementing the current liberal studies program. Students select from a variety of concentrations, such as counseling, rehabilitation, special education, or elementary education. The minor in urban civic education has provided a unique concentration area for all Fresno State students and liberal studies teacher candidates in particular. Over the past decade, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTCC) has implemented “blended” credential standards, where students can blend content coursework in their liberal studies degree with education coursework needed for their credential. Fresno State capitalized on this shift and developed a blended liberal studies multiple subject (elementary) degree and credential program. The minor in urban civic education is a natural complement to this blended program, as students are now able to blend coursework from the minor with their education coursework. In addition, the civic minor benefits from the existing service-learning courses within the liberal studies program. Currently, teacher education
References and Further Readings Angeles, P. A. (1992). HarperCollins dictionary of philosophy second edition: In-depth explanations and examples covering more than 3,000 entries. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Arensberg, C. (1981). Cultural holism through interactional systems. American Anthropologist, 83(3), 562–581. Baba, M. L. 2009. Disciplinary-professional relations in an era of anthropological engagement. Human Organization, 68(4), 380–391. Bell, R., Furco, A., Ammon, M. S., Muller, P., & Sorgen, V. (2000). Institutionalizing service-learning in higher education: Findings from a study of the Western Region Campus Compact Consortium. Berkeley, CA: ServiceLearning Research and Development Center. Boyle-Baise, M., & Sleeter, C. (2000). Community-based SL for multicultural teacher education. Educational Foundations, 14, 33–50. Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service-learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000, May/June). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 273–290. Bucco, D. (Ed.). (1995). Building sustainable programs: A guide to developing and maintaining service-learning at community colleges. Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact Center for Community Colleges. Butin, D. (2003). Of what use is it? Multiple conceptions of SL within education. Teachers College Record, 105, 1674–1692. Butin, D. (2006). Disciplining service learning: Institutionalization and the case for community studies.
students are provided opportunities to enroll in servicelearning courses such as Children and Families in Crisis, Group Communication, and Communication and Learning. These extant courses are now integral options within the civic minor and are combined with the Public Achievement course, a course developed to address FUSD needs, and a service-learning methods course.
Conclusion In this chapter, we have argued for the full institutionalization of service-learning in higher education as an academic discipline. We described John Dewey’s classic discussions around the relationship between theory and practice and then pointed out Freire’s later developments around these ideas through the appropriation of “praxis.” A review of complementary developments of activism and academic discipline creation in anthropology and service-learning emphasized the importance of properly financing, housing, and naming new academic disciplines. We were able to achieve these goals on the campus of Fresno State through the establishment of a minor in urban civic education.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 57–64. Calleson, D. C., Serow, R. C., & Parker, L. G. (1998). Institutional perspectives on integrating service and learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(3), 147–154. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (n.d.). Carnegie classifications: Institution profile. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/ view_institution.php?unit_id=110556&start_page=standard .php&clq={“eng2005_ids”:”3”%7 Chambers, E. (2009). In both our possibilities: Anthropology on the margins. Human Organization, 68(4), 374–379. Connors, K., & Seifer, S. D. (2005). Interdisciplinary models of service-learning in higher education. Learn and Serve America’s National Service Learning Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.3rdspacecc.org/uploads/1/8/3/0/ 18304817/interdisciplinary_learning_as_a_model_for_ service_learning.docx Cushman, E. (2002, September). Sustainable service-learning programs. CCC: College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 40–65. Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In J. A. Boydston, (Ed.), Essays on the new empiricism 1903–1906: Vol. 3. The middle works of John Dewey 1899–1924 (pp. 249–272). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York, NY: Dover. Ferguson, J. (1997). Anthropology and its evil twin: “Development” in the constitution of a discipline. In F. Cooper & R. Packard (Eds.), International development
112–•–II. USING AND APPLYING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT and the social sciences: Essays on the history and politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Continuum. Furco, A., & Ammon, M. S. (2000). Service-learning in California’s teacher education programs: A white paper. Berkeley, CA: Service-Learning Research and Development Center. Goody, J. (1995). The expansive moment: Anthropology in Britain and Africa, 1918–70. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hinck, S. S., & Brandell, M. E. (2000). The relationship between institutional support and campus acceptance of academic service learning. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 868–882. Kedia, S., & van Willigen, J. (Eds.). (2005). Applied anthropology: Domains of application. Westport, CT: Praeger. Lisman, C. D., & Ottenritter, N. (1998). Weaving service learning into the fabric of your college. National Society of Experiential Education Quarterly, 23(3), 10–11, 26–28.
McGee, J., & Warms, R. L. (2011). Anthropological theory: An introductory history. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Morrison, K. (2004). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Prentice, M. (2002). Institutionalizing service learning in community colleges. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Stocking, G. W. (1995). After Tylor: British social anthropology, 1888–1951. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. van Willigen, J. (2009). Disciplinary history and the struggle for legitimacy and effectiveness: Reflections on the situation of contemporary anthropologists. Human Organization, 68(4), 392–394. Westerhof, J., Wood, K., Wall, A., Hart, S., Mullooly, J., Harden, S., Sorensen, J., & McGinley, V. (2013, June). In J. Westerhof (Chair), Institutionalizing national civic minor in urban education project: Five new models that integrate service learning with public policy coursework. Paper presented at the ADP/TDC 2013 National Meeting, Denver, CO.
PART III USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
16 T HE S IX REQUIREMENTS S ERVICE -LEARNING
OF
A Pathway to High Impact Practices MARIE WATKINS
MOLLY SARUBBI
Nazareth College
University of Denver
COLLIN HAYES Nazareth College
The importance of service with others has become a huge part in my experience. Working alongside other people and growing together as individuals have brought meaning into everything else I do. Nazareth College student, 2012
A
collaborative service-learning model with partners as mutual experts and learners unites and sustains energy, celebrates assets, and shares resources all while encouraging • reciprocity, relationship-building, and resource-sharing among partners as they connect across differences; • rigorous practices applying purposeful effort applied in and out of the classroom to complete meaningful service projects; and • ongoing reflection and rich feedback. (Watkins & Braun, 2005)
Thus, the attributes of effective service-learning encourage a movement away from deficit-based repairing, helping, or
fixing of community “problems” toward essential elements of mutual engagement, quality service (Billig & Weah, 2008; Mintz & Hesser, 1996; Roehlkepartain, 2008), and high-impact service-learning (Brownell, Swaner, & Kuh, 2010; Kuh, 2008). This chapter focuses on the semester-based journey of Nazareth College students enrolled in a course called First Year Seminar: Youth Engaged in Service (FYS:YES) who partnered with community youths who experienced service-learning as a high-impact practice. Excerpts of students’ reflections provide testimony of their personal and academic transformation as they engaged with youths who are members of the City of Rochester’s Youth Voice One Vision (YVOV) Leadership Council to seek community solutions. The history of Nazareth College’s commitment to service is summarized to provide a context for the institutionalization of service-learning. The six R’s of service-learning framework is introduced as a model for service-learners to evolve beyond a “help/fix” model of deficit-based community interaction into one centered on an appreciation of mutual strengths and an equal exchange of knowledge and resources. In addition, the FYS:YES course outcomes, activities, and assignments are highlighted to illustrate the connection between reciprocitycentered service and rigorous academic learning. 115
116–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
Background Nazareth College, a co-educational, independent liberal arts college located on a suburban campus on the outskirts of Rochester, New York, has a 95-year tradition of academic excellence with service as a core fundamental tenet of its mission. The college is a Carnegie Foundation Classification for Community Engagement recipient and a 2012–2013 top-five recipient of the President’s National Honor Roll for Community Service. Nazareth’s core curriculum includes service-learning, which is one of eight options to complete the college’s experiential learning graduation requirement. To advance service-learning coherency and consistency at Nazareth College, the six R’s of service-learning (Watkins, 2010) was designed as a framework to guide the pedagogical and communitybuilding practices to effect high impact service-learning. The six R’s outline the following requirements: 1. Rigorous learning requires intensity of purpose to bridge academic goals with community interests, intentionality of course and project design and structure, and investment of resources to deepen the learning experience. 2. Relevant and responsive service necessitates a collaborative planning, implementation, and evaluation of service projects. The input of service partners is required, and faculty, students, and community members are active participants in each phase of the service experience. 3. Reciprocity and relationship building are core elements of high-impact service-learning practices that work to promote equality, shared power, and mutual respect. Interpersonal relationships solidify opportunities for personal growth and community building. 4. Reflection is structured, embedded, ongoing, and multidimensional to provide protected time and space for the discovery and assessment of one’s passion, one’s purpose, and one’s premises and how these influence one’s practice in their immediate and global communities. 5. Risk and reality assessment forces service partners to test assumptions, work through differences, understand institutional nuances that impede or assist with the service experience, and be authentic in the process of project planning, monitoring, and completion. 6. Recognition and celebration at each phase of the service-learning experience provides an opportunity to pause from the responsibilities of project completion to salute and affirm the contributions of themselves and their service partners.
The six R’s of service-learning (Watkins, 2010) are embedded within the First Year Seminar: Youth Engaged in Service course to introduce first semester students to the Nazareth College Core Curriculum with its special emphasis on the experiential learning requirement. As a result of the FYS:YES course, students are introduced to the hallmarks of a Nazareth College education: civic
engagement and experiential education processes situated within a rigorous academic curriculum. First-year students enhance their critical thinking, exploration, integration, and application academic skills as they answer the FYS: YES course’s enduring question: “What does it mean to be of service as a means to live a life of meaning and purpose?” A major component of the course is the service-learning partnership between FYS:YES students, ages 18 to 19 years, who reside on a suburban campus with Youth Voice One Vision members, ages 12 to 16 years, who live in urban settings in Rochester. On a weekly basis, on-campus and off-campus, FYS:YES students and YVOV members come together to study a youth-focused community issue, complete a literature review, critically assess a variety of solutions, and present their findings to public officials and other community youths. The students, along with the community youths, determine the appropriate out of class service-learning project that relates to their area of interest and FYS:YES course content (topics studied include the legitimacy of citywide curfews, availability of condoms in high schools, youth homelessness, youth bullying, advocacy for more afterschool programs, and best practices of service-learning, to name a few).
Challenge We challenge students to rise to their potential with a liberal arts and sciences foundation, professional programs, experiential learning, and an innovative curriculum that addresses the current and emerging needs of the world. . . . Nazareth prepares students to be successful professionals and engaged citizens. (Nazareth College, 2012)
Helping others based upon the tenets of social justice, ideology of community, fairness, and responsibility is a foundational value instilled by a Nazareth College education. However, there remains some resistance to the accomplishment—and not the intent—of the college’s mission. A sense of ambiguity and even disenchantment is felt by some faculty and community partners toward the word service and the concept of service-learning because of potential of condescending or deficit-based interpretations of the intent and goals of the service project. On the other hand, students experience confusion, and even consternation, as they are challenged to reframe their conception of service as something done “at, for, by, to people” into one that emphasizes an alliance of service “with the community” through academic service-learning. Assumptions about the roles and resources of “server” and “servee” create additional tension when students are faced with the reality that their interpretation of service contradicts that of their faculty or community partner. What happens when the imagined servee is, in reality, not in need of assistance and instead sees himself or herself
16. The Six Requirements of Service-Learning–•–117
as the resource-provider? As this FYS:YES student’s quote illustrates, students’ assumptions are issues that could lead to controversy! I assumed that because the YVOV members were from an urban high school, that we, as Naz students, would have to do the majority of the work . . . The service-learning concept, however, brought us all together as a group, not a stratified bunch, and we all worked on everything equally. I learned a lot about my assumptions, but also about my own skills and assets as well, working with the YVOV members.
Based on a review of FYS:YES student reflections, five themes of challenge emerged. The emergent themes correspond with the essential service-learning elements of diversity, linkage with curriculum and duration, youth voice, and meaningful service (Billig & Weah, 2008). Diversity discomfort. Students are unaccustomed to facing their own prejudices so directly and initially experienced discomfort in developing service-learning relationships with community youths who appeared to be so different from them. Integration limitation. Students have limited experience with purposeful service projects linked to academic course requirements, requiring critical analysis and investment for an entire semester. Un-tweetable reflections. Weekly written reflections, as well as the ongoing small group and larger group dialogues, required deep thinking about self, the connection of service to course outcomes, and relationship with faculty, classmates, and community partners, unlike the quick responses that students may make on forums such as Twitter, which limits users to 140 characters per message. Internalized adultism. The FYS:YES students experienced a sense of disorder and bewilderment when YVOV members demonstrated their sense of power, voice, and choice in and out of the classroom setting. The students had to rethink their assumptions about entitlement and privilege based upon age, class, and race as they renegotiated roles and responsibilities with YVOV members. Self-centered service. Students’ prior engagement within service has been a good fit for the individual students’ needs and purposes, thus, there was limited experience of service as a collaborative venture that required teamwork and an understanding of group development process (Watkins, 2013). The pushback and tension around defining and implementing service require resolution to advance highimpact practices in service-learning. A review of recent scholarship provides evidence-based practice to move forward.
Literature Review Reciprocal service-learning experiences have been found to be much more beneficial to students and community partners than short-term, problem-focused service projects, as there are greater opportunities for reflection, selfgrowth, and the connection of real-world experiences to classroom lessons (Holland & Gelmon, 1998; Sarubbi, 2012; Watkins & Braun, 2005). When a service-learning partnership is effectively embedded within an academic course, it fosters an environment of trust and respect, there is clear and open communication, multiple opportunities for growth and reflection, and the pooling of resources and strengths for mutual benefit between campus and community participants (Garlick & Landworthy, 2004; Sandmann, 2008; Torres & Schaffer, 2000; Vickers, Harris, & McCarthy, 2004). Furthermore, community members become co-teachers in the education process: They have extensive civic knowledge and established contacts within the surrounding area that are vital to the connection of service planning and execution with curricular outcomes (Garlick & Landworthy, 2004; Holland & Gelmon, 1994; Saltmarsh, Giles, War, & Buglione, 2009). Service-learning partnerships often directly contribute to student development, which is often defined as “the increase of self-understanding, networking, knowledge, experience, relationships, and social responsibility” (Sarubbi, 2012, p. 12). By learning in a variety of settings, students are more engaged with course material, experience greater holistic and academic development, and the networks of communication and linkages established in the community that are clearly advantageous in today’s highly competitive job market (Holland & Gelmon, 2004; Sarubbi, 2012; Watkins & Braun, 2005; Vickers et al., 2004). Thus, rigor, reciprocity, and relevancy are core service-learning elements that benefit the development of students as “whole persons,” offer options to strengthen community capacity, and, moreover, represent key aspects of highimpact practice. Using elements of high-impact practice and the six R’s of service-learning as a guide in the First Year Seminar: Youth Engaged in Service class, faculty, students, and community partners share a common set of research-based terms, expectations, and indicators to achieve best practices. These two frameworks assist service-learners to coalesce, rather than conflict, around differences of interpretation, assumptions, and outcomes surrounding the term service.
Solutions/Methods/Practice Through the Six R’s (Requirements) Student reflections, classroom activities and the six R’s describe at length the transformative process of achieving high-impact practice in service-learning.
118–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
Rigorous Learning Rigorous learning does not scratch the surface; it goes so deep that it forces the learner to discover new things about his or her self, which I found to be one of the greatest advantages of this type of learning. (FYS:YES student)
High-impact service-learning experiences are designed to meet specific academic goals and learning outcomes; this requires spending classroom time building the factual knowledge required to combine learning with serving (Billig & Weah, 2008; Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Kuh, 2008; Saltmarsh et al., 2009). Course lesson plans, required readings, and written assignments must relate directly to service, consider institutional and departmental outcomes, and promote the interests of the community partner (Morton, 1996; Watkins & Braun, 2005). Rigorous and deliberate instructional practices educate students to become effective writers, thinkers, speakers, and servers who have a clear sense of the real-world implications of their classroom lessons. As one FYS:YES Nazareth student wisely stated, “By engaging in rigorous learning, I was forced to slow down, work out problems, and understand the materials given to me.” A strong foundation of theoretical knowledge before the service itself takes place is crucial. The integration of the 40 Developmental Assets (Search Institute, 1990) and positive youth development principles (Benson, 2006; Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2007; Lerner, 2005; Watkins, 2011; Watkins, Charlesworth, & House, 2007; Watkins & Iverson, 1998) were core components of the FYS:YES class’s rigorous academic studies. To bridge asset-building and positive youth development theory with practice, students and community partners reviewed youth development scholarship, contributed to the design of course content and activities, and established a cooperative agreement to assure amicable collaboration. A FYS:YES student commented “I am involved in making up our curriculum and how the class runs . . . this is not the type of learning where I am tested on the information that I receive, instead, I reflect and share what I have learned.”
Relevant and Responsive Service If we don’t do our “duty” in service-learning, which is to be able to foster change, then we will forget why we are involved in service-learning in the first place—to learn important lessons in a unique way, not simply to learn the lessons outlined by the course. (FYS:YES student)
Service-learning courses necessitate purposeful service experiences where students apply lessons from their reading, classroom discussion, research and written assignments to achieve specifically designed academic goals (Watkins & Braun, 2005) that incorporate community input (Holland & Gelmon,1998; Reardon, 2006; Roehlkepartain, 2008). It is crucial that all members make equal contributions in order to advance their individual and
shared goals (Holland & Gelmon, 1998; Torres & Schaffer, 2000). Additionally, collecting an inventory of resources is a valuable class activity that highlights strengths and assets that exist within the local community, the college, the community partners, and the college students (Torres & Schaffer, 2000; Vickers et al., 2004; Watkins & Braun, 2005). The example of this asset-mapping activity is one of many youth activism projects that Nazareth College FYS:YES students and YVOV members plan, implement, and evaluate together. Another example of relevant and responsive service is the 10-year collaboration to host “Stepping Up to Solutions,” a youth advocacy conference. In addition to the responsibility of activity planning for the entire conference, students and YVOV members create and present workshops that relate to the stated interests of Rochester youths. As a result, students gain a greater awareness of the connection between their academic interests and how a variety of academic, civic, and project management skills can be applied in responding to the concerns of the local community.
Reciprocity Sharing information such as our backgrounds, our interests and work styles definitely established an instant connection with the YVOV members. We all became fundamental building blocks of the class because of our different areas of expertise. (FYS:YES student)
The reciprocal learning relationship that develops among project partners is a core outcome of effective service-learning. Success in a service-learning course directly corresponds to the service-learners’ ability to accept and participate within this exchange of knowledge and communication. If we imagine the reciprocal learning partnership as a triangle—of students, faculty, and community partners—it is easy to see the exchange of knowledge and communication flowing in all directions throughout the service project, yet, if the contributions of one service partner were to disappear, the service-learning experience is minimized (Sarubbi, 2012; Watkins & Braun, 2005; Vickers et al., 2004). Creating this flow of discourse requires time and commitment to build a learning community in which all parties feel completely open and comfortable expressing their thoughts and voicing their opinions (Reardon, 2006; Torres & Schaffer, 2000; Vickers et al., 2004). To develop this sense of community in the YES partnership, we employed a variety of team-building experiential learning activities that connect with course content, upcoming assignments, and service projects. Each class begins with a routine of check-in/warm-up activity, a reflection of the “what, so what, now what” (Kolb, 1984) to check the timely progression of service goals and a reminder of our cooperative agreement for civility. In addition, to highlight the importance of “personal voice,” all are reminded to speak for themselves, using “I” statements
16. The Six Requirements of Service-Learning–•–119
to avoid generalizations or unintentional statements of “other-ing.” Furthermore, presumptive terms or phrases that tend to marginalize, such as urban youth, college student and suburbs are unpacked through role-plays, simulations, and spoken word activities, thus reinforcing the importance of moving beyond stereotypes to learn and serve together. YVOV members and Nazareth FYS:YES students engage in a discourse about their respective realities, backgrounds, and interests. Service participants also collaborate to research and present service-learning and youth activism lectures that led to service projects that are planned and completed together. By engaging in this rigorous process, community youths and students come to view each other as equals, and their relationship grows from one of skepticism to one of mutual respect and appreciation. Most importantly, students and youths realize the importance of reciprocity and relationships and come to appreciate that although individual experiences may be unique, each person has the potential to grow together through their differences.
Risk and Reality Assessment Oftentimes, service-learning occurs in an environment unfamiliar to service partners, be it a neighborhood, an agency, or within an unfamiliar culture. Prudent servicelearning prepares service partners to safely identify areas of uncertainty by devoting significant class time to gauge attitudes and prepare for service prior to first interaction. The importance of this process is expressed in this FYS:YES student reflection: At first, the experience of serving with community youth was new and uncomfortable to me. But, I was encouraged by my instructors to keep an open mind, and before long I was shocked to realize that although we came from different realities, we had many things in common. Because my classmates and I were well prepared to serve in diverse settings, we were able to appreciate culture differences so that we could begin to see the knowledge and resources that all have to offer.
Skills to negotiate unexplored possibilities, unrecognized expectations, and unanticipated consequences are crucial lessons to be incorporated into class activities and reflection exercises to enhance students’ comfort with risk taking. The skills to adjust to the unexpected circumstance that arise during service-learning experiences are among the most difficult, yet impactful, lessons, as noted in this FYS:YES student’s statement: “I try to keep in mind that obstacles and challenges not only make me stronger, but they force me to explore outside of the comfortable routine that I have settled into.”
Reflection In order to encourage open and honest discourse about fears, assumptions, and feelings, as well as excitement and
anticipation, faculty must create an environment conducive for sharing one’s beliefs and values. Prereflection (prior to the service experience) with follow-up reflection exercises are structured throughout the service process for students to explore, analyze, and describe what they have learned and experienced. Rigorous reflection pushes students to critically connect the course outcomes and service-learning expectations with their new awareness of their own beliefs and values in response to their service experience. This may take place through class discussion or formal or informal writing exercises. Furthermore, by involving community members in the reflection process, the partnership is able to reexamine its goals and premises, allowing for growth and change over time (Torres & Schaffer, 2000) as student progress is fluid and organic and responds to the input and wisdom of others (Reardon, 2006; Sarubbi, 2012) Throughout the YES partnership, students have countless opportunities for structured reflection to connect realworld experience to classroom lessons. Reflecting before and after service projects helps to reinforce many of the basic principles of community youth development, and, according to one Nazareth student in 2012, “helped to show how all of my experiences through service were beneficial to my overall development, even if at first it was not obvious.” Whether checking-in at the beginning of class, writing reflection papers, reflecting as a group after service, or using play as a means to reflect, structured opportunities for growth and dialogue allow students to examine what is taking place in the course and how it affects their personal, academic, and civic development.
Recognition and Celebration By taking time out of “getting stuff done” to recognize the things that we often take for granted, we discovered strengths and skills in ourselves and others that we may have previously overlooked. As we encourage others and are encouraged ourselves, we realize all that we have to contribute and how we can make a difference through service. (FYS:YES student)
The unique collaboration brought together by this opportunity to learn and serve must be celebrated (Torres & Schaffer, 2000). Therefore, regular breaks from the rigor of the service experience to celebrate the individual and collective contributions of all service partners are incorporated into the class and service schedule. Recognition activities, which are different from reflection, keep morale high as the group may experience ups and downs as the service-project evolves toward a successful completion. Sharing a meal and engaging in fun activities are examples of recognition activities that affirm people, process, and progress at each phase of the service project. At the end of the service-learning project, a “good good-bye ritual” (Watkins & Braun, 2005) is crucial for service partners to end their experience on a high note and bring closure to the experience.
120–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
Conclusion and Implications By following the six R’s model, we continue to educate students, faculty, and community members in their understanding of service beyond helping and fixing, toward the high impact practices of engagement and collaboration. The six R’s (Watkins, 2010) have been adopted by the Nazareth College Experiential Learning Committee as “what counts” for standards of effective service-learning. Consequently, as service-learning
References and Further Readings Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2007). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applications. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 1 (Chap. 16). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Billig, S. H., & Weah, W. (2008). K-12 service-learning standards for quality practice. In J. C. Kielsmeier, M. Neal, N. Schultz, & T. J. Leeper, Growing to greatness: The state of service-learning (pp. 8–15). St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council. Retrieved from http://www .nylc.org/sites/nylc.org/files/files/G2G08.pdf Brownell, J. E., Swaner, L. E., & Kuh, G. D. (2010). Five high-impact practices: research on learning outcomes, completion, and quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Butin, D. W. (2007, November/December). Focusing our aim: Strengthening faculty commitment to community engagement. Change, 34–37. Garlick, S., & Landworthy, A. (2004). Building a culture of improvement through evaluation in university/regional community engagement. Retrieved from http://www .lilydale.swinburne.edu.au/crd/documents/GAR_585.pdf Holland, B. A., & Gelmon, S. B. (1998). The state of the “engaged campus”: What have we learned about building and sustaining university-community partnerships. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 3(6), 105–108. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices. What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development. Retrieved from http://ase.tufts.edu/iaryd/documents/ pubPromotingPositive.pdf Mintz, S., & Hesser, G. (1996). Principles of good practice in service-learning. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Service-learning and higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 26–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
continues to be deeply embedded within Nazareth College’s core curriculum, students’ preconceptions about service will continue to be challenged. Because the college’s goal is to develop students who are culturally sensitive, appreciative to diversity, and can operate effectively as members of an increasingly globalized world, effective service-learning has emerged as a transformative high-impact pedagogical practice to achieve core student learning outcomes, and in the end, accomplish the mission of the college.
Morton, K. (1996). Issues related to integrating service-learning the curriculum. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Service-learning and higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 276–296). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nazareth College. (2012). Mission & Vision. Retrieved from http://www.naz.edu/about-nazareth/mission-vision Reardon, K. M. (2006). Promoting reciprocity within community/university development partnerships: Lessons from the field. Planning, Practice & Research, 21(1), 95–107. Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2008). Beyond needs assessments: Identifying a community’s resources and hopes. Retrieved from http://www.servicelearning.org/instant_info/ fact_sheets/cb_facts/beyond_needs_assess Saltmarsh, J., Giles, D. E., Jr., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. M. (2009). Rewarding community-engaged scholarship. New Direction for Higher Education, 147 25–35. Sandmann, L. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91–104. Sarubbi, M. (2012). Service-learning best practices and student development (Unpublished thesis). University of Rochester, Warner School of Human Development and Education, Rochester, New York. Search Institute. (1990). Developmental assets. Retrieved from http://www.search-institute.org/research/developmental-assets Torres, J., & Schaffer, J. (2000). Benchmarks for campus/ community partnerships. Retrieved from http://www .virginia.edu/provost/public/pdf/benchmarks.pdf Vickers, M., Harris, C., & McCarthy, F. (2004). Universitycommunity engagement: Exploring service-learning options within the practicum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(2), 129–141. Watkins, M. (2010). The 6 R’s of service-learning (Unpublished document). Nazareth College, Rochester, NY. Watkins, M. (2011). Relationships and resistance: Resiliency strategies for girls. In R. R. Greene (Ed.), Resiliency and social work practice. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Watkins, M. (2013). Student reflections about service-learning (Unpublished document). Nazareth College, Rochester, NY. Watkins, M., & Braun, L. (2005). Service-learning: From classroom to community to career. Indianapolis: IN: JIST Publishing.
16. The Six Requirements of Service-Learning–•–121 Watkins, M., Charlesworth, L., & House, A. (2007). Social work practice: Nurturing beginning practice skills while mobilizing partnerships between youth development agencies and social work education. In M. Nadel, V. Majewski, & M. SullivanCosetti (Eds.), Social work and service learning: Partnerships for social justice (Chap. 5). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Watkins, M., & Iverson, E. (1998). Youth development principles and field practicum opportunities. In R. R. Greene & M. Watkins (Eds.), Serving diverse constituencies: Applying the ecological perspective (pp. 167–198). New York, NY: DeGruyter.
17 INTEGRATING KNOWLEDGE THROUGH ACADEMIC SERVICE-LEARNING SCOTT L. CRABILL
CHRISTOPHER D. JENSEN
Oakland University
Oakland University
A
cademic service-learning (ASL) provides an environment of inquiry and interaction with professors that challenges student thinking about complex issues and problems. The nature of ASL and the work of interdisciplinary studies (IDS), when done well, have an inherent messiness that require faculty, staff, and students to manage ambiguity, confront their biases, and integrate multiple variables to create a new understanding of a complex issue. This chapter focuses upon a capstone course for an interdisciplinary major program at Oakland University, a large suburban public university in the Midwest. The course is the culmination of student educational experiences and is designed to integrate knowledge gained through the general education requirement and their undergraduate major. Exposure to the theoretical underpinnings of service-learning and how this pedagogy contributes to student learning within the complex nature of interdisciplinary studies is explored. In addition, the chapter will explore ASL as a viable pedagogy within the realm of interdisciplinary studies, recognizing the complexity of the issues researched and providing students with firsthand understanding of how problem-based learning can be used to enhance interdisciplinary/integrative knowledge and civic engagement. Academic service-learning is more than the addition of community service to learning objectives of a course; rather, it is the integration of service within learning objectives of a course (Butin, 2010; Howard, 1998). Implemented effectively, ASL is an integrated model where the service experiences inform and transform the academic learning, and the academic learning informs and transforms the service experience (Honnet & Poulsen,
1989). ASL experiences have lasting effects on students and faculty. Faculty utilizing this form of pedagogy show more commitment to teaching and meaningful engagement with students, other faculty, and the institution (Pribbenow, 2005). ASL provides a disruption of an institutional model that has favored territoriality through disciplinary silos across campus. This disruption provides an opportunity to engage students in knowledge creation, moving from a more passive of knowledge acquisition and thus becoming a transformational process of learning.
Challenges Facing Integrative Learning The social issues and problems typically addressed within ASL experiences and courses are inherently complex. This complexity requires students and faculty to move beyond basic levels of learning. Attempting to elevate student learning from a “knowing and understanding” mode to higher levels of learning such as analysis, synthesis, and creation, is a realistic yet lofty goal for higher education. Competing with this goal is the prominence that university-level teaching places upon disciplinary knowledge and insights. To become a university professor it is essential that faculty undergo an intense training in a narrow field of study in which an expertise is developed (Holbrook, 2010). As a result of this focused training within a disciplinary perspective, most faculty members are not exposed to multiple disciplinary perspectives, learning theories, or any formal training in pedagogy. Therefore, university-level teaching revolves around the knowledge and understanding of the faculty member within the faculty member’s 123
124–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
disciplinary training. Consequently, limits are imposed upon faculty members’ ability to provide an integrative understanding of complex issues that emerge in ASL experiences and courses. In addition to the rigid disciplinary perspectives developed through preparation for the professoriate, universities themselves are structured around these disciplinary silos. Attempts to bridge gaps across disciplinary perspectives are often fraught with turf-type battles that focus upon which discipline generates knowledge germane to the issues that extend beyond classroom settings (Klein, 2010). What emerges is a narrow understanding of the issues being explored. Put differently, student learning is focused upon a single disciplinary perspective that may not consider the full scope of the complex issue being examined. As a result, it is possible that faculty may not be prepared to deal with the “unintended” learning moments that result from the departure from the controlled environment of the classroom. Ideally these gaps could be bridged with various approaches that join disciplinary perspectives such as team teaching or integrative program and course designs. However, these types of interventions present challenges of their own (e.g., issues of budget and ownership of program or courses). Beyond the political and budgetary issues surrounding interdisciplinary/integrative teaching, there are some academic considerations regarding the complexity of expert knowledge and methods required to ethically address community needs. For students to be prepared for the ASL experience it is essential that they have some fundamental knowledge and competency within the multiple disciplines they may encounter during their service. Without some understanding and insight into the social issue or problem being addressed, the potential for integrative learning is minimized. It is also possible that student bias and prejudice could be further affirmed as a result of a poorly prepared faculty member who does not have an understanding of the social dynamics that are present within the context of the ASL assignment or course (Butin, 2010). Further yet, a breadth of knowledge over a depth of knowledge could hamper the community benefit from ASL. Framing ASL as an experience that “anyone” can do minimizes the value of the community and the need for expertise in the community. Therefore, the tension between breadth and depth of disciplinary understanding is an important challenge facing the efficacy of integrative learning in the context of ASL.
Review of Literature Interdisciplinary studies (IDS) has been a topic of discussion among scholars for decades, however, it has received increased attention in higher education in recent years (Klein, 2010). Much like the debates that circle around definitions of disciplinary perspectives, IDS has
encountered the same dialogue. For the purposes of this chapter, we will be employing Klein and Newell’s (1997) definition of IDS: Interdisciplinary studies is a process of answering a question, solving a problem or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession . . . and draws on disciplinary perspectives and integrates their insights through construction of a more comprehensive perspective. (pp. 393–394)
It is evident that IDS is rooted in understanding more dynamic issues and problems, recognizing the many dimensions of complex issues and problems. According to Allen F. Repko (2012), the process of integrating multiple variables to create a new understanding of such issues and problems is the basis of IDS; without integration, IDS is not possible. As such, IDS and the process of integration provide a methodology for addressing multifaceted, multidisciplinary, and complex issues and problems, such as those encountered within ASL. ASL experiences provide contextually rich environments for the application of IDS and an integrative methodology. These experiences provide a venue where students can learn about multiple disciplines, along with learning about themselves and society. Because ASL allows students to encounter dynamic situations and people from a variety of backgrounds, students are forced to examine issues about which they have had little knowledge or understanding. Therefore, quality ASL experiences provide an environment to cultivate the whole person (Bowen, 1977) not only their intellect and practical competencies, but also through affective dispositions, including the moral, emotional, and esthetic aspects of the student. When done well, ASL experiences provide students a “transformative learning” opportunity. Transformative learning as Mezirow (1991) explained was “an analysis of the psycho-cultural process of making meaning, the nature of meaning structures and how they are transformed through reflection, rational discourse, and emancipatory action” (p. 39). ASL experiences give the students an opportunity to experience something new or different. These experiences do not “put on a show,” but place students in new situations that allow them to make meaning of their experiences through their service with a community partner. Each experience allows the student to reconstruct meaning by what Mezirow (1991) referred to as a momentary pause in which one draws upon past experience so as to recognize their relation to another. It is this momentary pause that faculty must utilize to facilitate integrative learning as they work with students during ASL experiences. This allows students to learn from the ASL experience in a social context and understand the complex nature of the world they live in. Faculty need to be engaged with students and ask good questions of students
17. Integrating Knowledge Through Academic Service-Learning–•–125
and allow them to develop their frame of reference or perspective and also to be challenged or confirmed. Allowing students to bring in personal experiences helps with the learning, and the motivation to learn and continue to learn could depend on them learning how they see their situation and understand complex issues and problems through an integrative model.
Problem- and Issue-Based Learning In 1975, David A. Kolb and Ronald E. Fry developed an approach to classify learning styles. Through their model, they defined four learning styles: converger, diverger, assimilator, and accommodator. The researchers do not contend that one learning style is better than another; rather, there is a difference within learner’s ability to learn material. This model illustrates a four stage experiential learning cycle, which is comprised of an immediate concrete experience, observation and reflection on that experience, the formulation of a hypothesis or some kind of theory, and finally testing of that theory through practical action. Kolb (1984) expanded this concept of experiential learning as a “process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p. 38). Experiential learning can take place in many ways, which often takes the form of having students work on complex projects performed as members of groups, precisely what ASL experiences provide. Assuming that ASL experiences can produce learning, the key to maximizing the students’ potential is to make the most of the experiences. Linking educational experiences to the student’s interests kindles intrinsic motivation and increases learning effectiveness (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). When faculty extract lessons from the community servicelearning experiences, it provides a fertile ground for students to develop their understanding not only of the course material, but also about themselves and their community. These experiences provide students with opportunities to learn from the service experience and to challenge themselves in pragmatic tasks while enhancing their learning. When creating meaningful ASL experiences one must consider the purpose of educating his or her students. Are we just giving knowledge to the students hoping they can regurgitate it on a test or are we providing an environment where differences are raised and encouraged? The educator needs to allow each “difference” the opportunity to excel in the classroom and specifically in life; and this will depend greatly on the educator’s personal experience with difference and his or her ability to effectively interact with the class. As ASL experiences are organized there is a need to understand the complexity of learning and to try to incorporate as many concepts as possible into the learning experience in order to maximize its effectiveness. Students come to the experience from a variety of
perspectives and capacities for learning. The experience should be designed to help develop a deeper awareness of self and broader perspective of others. Faculty and staff need to be intentional in the design of the course and become critically aware so that they can better guide students in developing a critical consciousness (Cipolle, 2010). Therefore, how the institution allocates its resources and arranges its curricula, along with other learning opportunities and support services to encourage students to participate in ASL experiences can have an impact on students’ self-concept or self-esteem, or even their sense of identity (Kuh, 2009). As educators, it is important to create educational opportunities for students in class, but it is also essential that a space for discussions is created for students to make meaning of the ASL experience. The latter can be the difficult part of education. There will be times when the experience is “in over our heads,” that will be difficult to make sense out of all of it, therefore, it will be necessary to pause and try to make sense of the experience. Current issues in the world have brought into sharp focus a number of societal problems that have defied simple solutions. The magnitude of challenges such as poverty, substance abuse, inadequate education, prejudice, and lack of support for young people is overwhelming (Bonsall, Harris, & Marczak, 2002). Society expects colleges and universities to play a role in developing students to deal with these issues now and in the future. As students have the opportunity to learn from the experience, the goal is to help them discover themselves— their aptitudes, interest, values, commitments, and aspirations. ASL experiences provide ample opportunities for students to learn about diversity or other civic education. Therefore, students need to feel safe expressing themselves. The students need a framework for understanding their experiences and to be able to freely express their ideas without prejudice or retaliation. If students feel uncomfortable expressing their views it would limit the dialogue and prevent the students from learning from the experiences. By allowing students to fully express their views, it will allow them to critically examine their points of view because other students may have different points of view that the students have to examine. However, it is essential students have an adequately informed perspective to base their analysis on, otherwise there is potential to reinforce student stereotypes and prejudices.
Classroom Meets Community A common complaint among students enrolled in general education courses at the university is the lack of clear connection of how course content is related to practical applications in their lives. The capstone course is designed to integrate knowledge gained through the general education requirement and the individual major. The main
126–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
focus is the exploration of knowledge integration, specifically how various disciplines students have been exposed to through their education relate to individual and community well-being, as well as broader social contexts. The primary evaluation for the course is a research paper that is built around the students’ self-selected ASL experience. Students in the course are charged with identifying a research topic that lends itself to an integrative approach. Topics researched must have depth that can be explored from a scholarly perspective of at least two disciplines and must be pertinent to the ASL experience they are engaged within the community. The intent is to provide students an opportunity to understand the connection between their research and the greater good of the community. Through the research process, students focus on an issue of social importance and support the problem they have identified with research, justify an integrative approach to managing this problem using the integrative process explained in the course readings, and then identify two relevant disciplines involved in understanding it. The ASL experience must be pertinent to the question they have developed. For example, if a student chose an ASL placement that serves battered women, there are a multitude of issues that can be identified within this experience (i.e., domestic violence, power or dominance in relationships, substance abuse). The goal of the research process and ASL experience is to provide students with a better understanding of their place as a student, a scholar, and a citizen.
Infusing Research Into Student Understanding of Social Issue or Problem Since the founding of Harvard College in 1636, the goals of American higher education have included the preparation of citizens for active involvement in community life (Smith, 1994). When students participate in community service, it provides many opportunities for students to cultivate their skills and to develop and enhance their abilities and civic consciousness. These experiences facilitate personal development, which affects the students’ values, and how the students related to their community and to their college experience. Involvement by the university in community has been gauged by several variables, but is often referred to knowledge generation that emerges from research at universities. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the research process is an important element of the undergraduate experience. However, there are often gaps between research generated and the application of the research to specific community needs. Research conducted within the community can easily be consumed by the research and not the community, which typically results from prescribed methodologies that emerge from disciplinary perspective. Employing an integrative methodology within the course provides students and the
community partner an opportunity to benefit from the research process; this is an essential goal for the course. Through the research process and involvement in the community, students are recognizing the multiple disciplines that influence the issue or problem and are exposed to the limitations of individual disciplines in addressing complex issues or problems. In order for students to fully understand the integration of knowledge and the complex world they live in, the focus of the research project is on students demonstrating the ability to identify disciplinary perspectives, recognize conflict within these perspectives, identify common ground, and suggest a possible solution to the issue or problem. This process entails students working closely with, and serving, the community they have selected in order to understand and identify disciplinary perspectives intertwined in the community issue or problem. In order to facilitate a greater understanding, students critique these disciplinary perspectives, by identifying limitations in each perspective and then finding common ground within the multiple perspectives.
Integrating Student Knowledge Through Service-Learning In order for knowledge integration to occur, students must understand the operating logics of the various disciplines and through this process identify a common ground. According to Repko (2012), “the ability to create common ground (within disciplinary perspectives) is preparatory for performing integration and constructing a more comprehensive understanding” (p. 272). Thus it is important that students understand multiple perspectives and assess how each can provide a useful perspective for solving reallife problems. ASL provides an environment of inquiry and allows students the opportunity to think and make meaning of their life and the world. John Dewey (1916) expected students to see themselves as the meaning-makers, the ones to bring order and meaning to the world. The research process culminates in students creating a well-informed evaluation of their issue or problem and in doing so construct a more comprehensive understanding of the issue or problem and presenting a possible solution that integrates the various perspectives. Repko (2012) contends that integration is the process of deconstructing an issue or problem and reconstructing in a manner that creates in essence a new “holistic” perspective or understanding. For instance, students researching poverty and serving in a community plagued by such issues may find that poverty is more complex than they imagined. Through the service and research process, they are able to discover the social, economic, and political forces at the core of the issue, experiencing firsthand these complicated dynamics. The process of integration and the ASL experience brings a holistic approach to education, as it focuses on the practical application, experiential, and real-world processes.
17. Integrating Knowledge Through Academic Service-Learning–•–127
Conclusion and Implications Throughout history, higher education has been promoted as a public good. According to Howard Bowman (as cited in St. John & Parsons, 2004, p. 37), since the inception of land grant universities in the late 1800s, “Americans—including governors, state legislators, and U.S. representatives and senators—increasingly viewed funding for higher education as a social investment for the public good.” Contributions to the community enhance the college or universities’ public support, especially when more and more institutions are incorporating service-learning programs that integrate student service and academic learning (St. John & Parsons, 2004). Robert A. Rhoads (1997) emphasized the central goals of education are “to help student recognize their own positionality [sic] and how various forces mitigate their ability to develop a critical consciousness” (p. 212). Students need to be aware of the problems in their community so that they can understand more comprehensively whether this problem is at the local or social level. Using structured reflection provides students the opportunity to recognize the relevance of research to the community and by working with community partners understand the importance of working with the community as opposed to doing something to the community.
References and Further Readings Bonsall, D. L., Harris, R. A., & Marczak, J. N. (2002). The community as a classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 100, 85–95. Bowen, H. R. (1977). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Cipolle, S. B. (2010). Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Holbrook, J. B. (2010). Peer review. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 321–332). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Honnet, E. P., & Poulsen, S. J. (1989). Principles of good practice for combining service and learning. A wingspread special report. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation. Howard, J. (1998). Academic service learning: A counternormative pedagogy. In J. P. F. Howard & R. A. Rhoads (Eds.), Academic service learning: A pedagogy of action and reflection (pp. 21–29). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Klein, J. T. (2010). Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1997). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In J. G. Gaff, J. L. Ratcliff, & Associates (Eds.),
The objective and hope for the capstone course is to assist students in understanding the relevance of their whole education as it relates to the greater good of the community. The fact is, students encounter multiple disciplines when they step into the community for ASL. IDS is a very useful lens for understanding the complexity of these experiences and provides a sound research methodology to assist students in intellectually engaging the multifaceted issues or problems they encounter. Through the integrative research method, students are provided the opportunity to serve the community in a meaningful way and be responsible for understanding complex issues and problems and dealing with the ambiguity of these complicated matters. As a result of the research process, students demonstrate the ability to formulate an interdisciplinary lexicon, recognize operating logics of academic disciplines, use a variety of methods of inquiry, and recognize ethical considerations that arise from complex issues or problems. Colleges and universities need to create farreaching developmental and educational experiences. By providing students with educational environments that include a number of ASL experiences, today’s students will have meaningful experiences that help them be successful and also assist them in tackling society’s toughest issues and problems.
Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change (pp. 393–415). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb. D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group process, London, UK: Wiley. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pribbenow, D. A. (2005). The impact of service-learning pedagogy on faculty teaching and learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(2), 25–38. Repko, A. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations of the caring self. Albany: State University of New York Press. Smith, M. W. (1994). Issues in integrating service-learning into the higher education curriculum. Washington, DC: Youth Service America. St. John, E. P., & Parsons, M. D. (Eds.). (2004). Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18 SERVICE-LEARNING POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION MARGARET SASS Purdue University
T
hough many higher education institutions have implemented service-learning as a strategic initiative, few have created a written policy focusing on service-learning requirements in the curriculum. Implementing a service-learning policy is a formal declaration of colleges and universities supporting a more holistic and community-oriented approach to higher education. With service-learning as a necessary supplement to courses, students become more involved in their community while achieving educational objectives. Though it may be challenging to find efficient resources and dedicated faculty for service-learning projects, the wealth of knowledge students retrieve while providing much needed service to nonprofit organizations outweighs the beginning hardships. This chapter discusses the implementation of a servicelearning policy for higher education institutions in support of a college’s strategic plan of community engagement. Methods to implement, create an agenda, develop advisory councils, and create professional development opportunities (Witmer & Anderson, 1994) in support of servicelearning policy are examined. In addition, examples of legal guidelines for college faculty, staff, students, and nonprofits are reviewed.
Policy Philosophy What is policy? For this paper, we will use the definition “the formal guidance needed to coordinate and execute activity throughout the institution. When effectively deployed, policy statements help focus attention and resources on high priority issues—aligning and merging
efforts to achieve the institutional vision. Policy provides the operational framework within which the institution functions” (California Polytechnic, 2012, para. 3). When thinking of policy, many citizens would argue that it involves a web of politics, rules, and regulations enforced upon all or specific community members. The policy’s purpose is to establish guidelines for certain actions with the intent of bettering the community. This includes policy creation in higher education. Though policy in higher education can directly affect college employees and students, it may have an indirect impact on the surrounding community on several levels. The community partners may be greatly affected by a large resource of volunteers to support their causes. This can be positive in aspects of progress for these organizations. However, the new policy can also be detrimental if the community organizations cannot support the mass of volunteers. Educators, students, and community members should be part of the process, as policy not only creates what must be implemented, but what transpires once the implementation occurs. Diversity of stakeholders is encouraged because it allows them to be active in the process and not just a person that insures application (Gale & Tranter, 2011). New policies should also meet the current needs or problematic issues of students and support a positive learning experience. Policy should promote higher learning outcomes and productive students so students can be more successful in employment and in life. Policy should be “action” oriented, rather than a continual flow of discussion without a resulting end. Due to the dire need of a collaborative and shared dialogue, an advisory council with a concentrated focus on how the policy should be written and implemented should be initiated. 129
130–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
Council members should be aware that “policy discourse is like a double-hinged door; it is both productive of ‘text’ and interpretive of it” (Gale & Tranter, 2011, p. 4) when trying to decide on an agenda.
Advisory Council Who and how many individuals should be involved in the conception of the service-learning policy is a common question higher administration answers. There are several types of council dynamics a higher education institution can choose. First, an advisory council can involve the community at large (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). The college can either choose particular members or request volunteers that have an interest in service-learning within or outside the college boundaries. A more common approach among school advisory councils in K–12 consists of employees already managing the educational institution (Guthrie, 1986). A second option involves a combination of college employees that include administrators, tenure-track faculty, adjunct faculty, community business members, and nonprofit organizations. This diverse group presents multiple perspectives. When such a council is created, it’s not unusual for council members to look at the private sector for models of progress (Rhoades & Sporn, 2002) as means of establishing policy. They can present to chief college officers research findings and suggestions. One format is described as “shared governance” in which a selected group of people come together and share the responsibility of creating the policy. Shared governance is “the process that connects and holds in balance the governance structures contributing to institutional decision making” (Johnston, 2003, p. 60). If this method is chosen, Johnston suggests that the members involved should be rewarded either through tenure or promotion or feel appreciated for their time. Johnston says another benefit of being a participant of the shared governance is direct exposure to administrative functioning of higher education and how an institution is organized and facilitated. This new knowledge may assist with promotional opportunities. Advisory councils’ duties should consist of creating a working definition of service-learning, a mission statement, vision proclamation, objectives, process of implementation, and if needed, a long-term strategic plan for such implementation. A service-learning definition can be based on what other organizations have created or can be specifically created for that college. The National Youth Leadership Council defines service-learning as a teaching and learning approach in which students are able to apply academic knowledge and skills to fulfill community needs. A more elaborate definition is provided by Brigham Young University Idaho (2001) in their committee minutes, which states “service-learning is a credit-bearing, educational experience in which students: 1) participate in
an organized service activity that meets identified on- and off-campus community needs and 2) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (para. 4). When choosing or creating a definition, it should reflect the college’s overall mission. An advisory council’s mission statement, which usually mirrors the institution’s mission statement, shares what its purpose is and why it now exists as a new council for the college. A mission statement example by Central Washington University (n.d.) is written as The Central Washington University Academic ServiceLearning Advisory Committee is a core group of community members and faculty, students, and staff who advocate for academic service learning on campus and to the community at large. We promote academic service learning on campus by providing advice, direction and strategic planning to the Academic Service Learning program.
Contributing to the mission statement is a strong vision statement. An inspiring vision statement should summarize the advisory council’s current and future initiatives and be communicated across the college. Though a vision and mission are necessary, these somewhat ambiguous proclamations should be supported by concrete objectives. Some objective examples are (a) providing guidance and support for a service-learning director, (b) being a positive and encouraging liaison for the community and the college, (c) promoting service-learning, and (d) designating specific service-learning courses as curricular. It should be noted that there is usually a certain “culture” in a higher education institution, which can be supportive or discouraging. The council should be aware of the college culture when proceeding on policy development.
Agenda Creation Most institutions of higher education are familiar with agendas in both a formal and informal setting. Due to the importance of policy formation, the agenda should provide the council with (1) successive steps, (2) updates on general information pertaining to the policy, and (3) objectives for each meeting including who is responsible for certain goals. An agenda chair should be chosen to organize, initiate, and generate a productive agenda. Since the council consists of several individuals and a variety of perceptions, each has a personal agenda for being a participant (Niederman & Volkema, 1996) that may or may not be conducive to the group’s goal. As the meetings proceed and it becomes clear that an individual’s agenda is damaging to the group, that individual should be asked to either agree to the group’s terms or leave the council. It is crucial that members responsible for the policy should advance the mission and vision of that policy.
18. Service-Learning Policy in Higher Education–•–131
How does the agenda chair decide what is on the agenda? There needs to be a thoughtful discussion on the overall goals from the beginning (Niederman & Volkema, 1996). As mentioned previously, the council should create a mission, vision, objectives, and an implementation plan. This is a huge undertaking, so clarity and definitive goals for each meeting are adamant. Such transparency can be established by making certain members be accountable for certain duties. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food of Ontario, Canada (2013) suggest that meetings should have an action sheet that includes the following: (1) state what action is required, who’s responsible, and when that action should be completed and then reported; (2) have a secretary to record on this action sheet; (3) before the meeting ends, the chair should review this sheet and make sure everyone is on board for whatever their responsibilities entail; and (4) that same action sheet then becomes the agenda for the next meeting. The University of Wisconsin–Madison (2007) suggests that all items listed on an agenda should have action words: decide, discuss, review, select, and finish. Additionally, an agenda should include a preview before each meeting to prepare members for the upcoming meeting and what is to be accomplished at the meeting (Niederman & Volkema, 1996). A discussion and an open forum about the policy should be put forth to faculty, staff, students, and other stakeholders. Their input is vital to the overall success of a servicelearning policy. In order for their voices to be heard, the council should create dates and times for focus groups and interviews with these stakeholders. The council should think about questions they want to ask, who should be part of the focus groups, and whether there should be an overall questionnaire or survey distributed. That information should be brought back to the council’s table when designing the policy. This discussion may occur over several meetings, so the council should consider creating a “working” document that allows continual input and suggestions for the next meeting. Once a mission statement has been created, Robert G. Bringle and Julie A. Hatcher (1996) recommend that the service-learning mission statement should be publicized at meetings and documented. Keeping the community updated will ease the implementation process. Once a strong mission statement is established, the college should create an operations committee (separate from the advisory council) that includes both interested and designated faculty as well as community leaders (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). The purpose of the committee is to execute the program in relation to the policy and the mission.
Implementation A thorough policy implementation is essential. Application of such policy can occur through two common forms: top-down implementation and bottom-up implementation.
Top-down is a more hierarchical format (deLeon & deLeon, 2002) where decisions are made at the top and affect those below the decision-making positions. Bottom-up is a “reflection of communal interest” (p. 478) and is a more democratic approach. Peter deLeon and Linda deLeon (2002) support “bottom-up” as the best method for policy implementation as it encourages participation. As Davis B. Bobrow and John S. Dryzek (1987) encourage, applying the right approach for incorporating a new policy must be analyzed. There are optional methods other than the most popular top-down or bottom-up procedure when applying policies and procedures, but it must be clear what the purpose is for creating a policy no matter what approach is taken. Though college administration hopes for a harmonizing implementation process, any new policy creates critics. This should be expected. The council should be able to answer the questions of such cynics, providing how the policy helps the greater good and the mission of the college. In addition, the implementation progression should include a time frame, guidelines for staff and faculty to follow, and expected outcomes of how students and their courses will benefit. When considering a time frame, ask these questions: Does the council want this to occur immediately once the necessary people have approved the policy? Does the council want to postpone another semester or another year? Should the policy progress in different phases to slowly introduce it to faculty and staff? Should different departments incorporate it first? Those questions may be tedious but significant for a clean implementation and for providing professional development and training.
Professional Development Professional development is a vital piece of successful service-learning policy implementation. A professional development course or workshop can either be required or highly recommended to faculty. Most importantly, the opportunity should be available. The training should educate attendees on (1) what service-learning is, (2) the purpose of the policy, (3) what is expected of faculty and staff, (4) techniques on how to incorporate service-learning into the curriculum, and (5) how students and the community benefit from the policy. Judith T. Witmer and Carolyn S. Anderson (1994) offer three different formats to deliver training for staff: (1) training sessions that occur over a period of time as a week, a month, or an academic year; (2) an assignment within an already required faculty and staff training; or (3) a separate activity the faculty and staff accomplish on their own. A specific training is focused completely on servicelearning and may require a service-learning professional to teach it face-to-face or through a learning management system. The assignment option can be supplemental training for an already established training cycle or schedule. An extracurricular activity could be individualistic professional
132–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
development the staff and faculty seek on their own to accomplish, and then report to their supervisor accordingly. Part of the professional development should communicate to faculty that they are responsible for educating their students about the service-learning concept and how it will be applied in the classroom. Faculty should also inform students on what the policy means, why it was incorporated, and how they benefit. Professional development of the new policy should occur prior to policy activation. Faculty and staff should be alerted to particular procedures and documents that are necessary to complete whether through workshops, training, or other forms of communication. Administration should provide the tools to incorporate service-learning into the curriculum. This could be in the form of generic syllabi to adapt and community activities to implement. Lastly, professional development should be ongoing so faculty are continually updated and educated about the policy. This involves monitoring the process and “checking in” on implementation (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). The Centre for Effective Services (Burke, Morris, & McGarrigle, 2012) suggests that implementation should establish a clear delivery model with designated tasks for individuals and should provide a way for feedback on what is working and what is not. The organization’s guide to implementation states that there should be a reflective time when the process is complete with a contemplative assessment of the outcomes.
Evaluation This essential element should not be disregarded, as it is fundamental to evaluate whether the new policy is functioning properly. An evaluation should assess if the policy is operating as envisioned and how it can be improved (deLeon & deLeon, 2002). Stella Z. Theodoulou and Chris Kofinis (2004) define evaluation as “the effect that renders a judgment about program quality,” “information gathering for the purpose of making decisions about the future,” and “the use of scientific methods to determine how successful implementation and its outcomes have been” (p. 192). The council should be flexible to make change if the vision and mission are not being fulfilled. The evaluation process can be formal or informal, depending on what the administration requests. Informal evaluation can involve both college staff and council members to observe faculty, staff, and students. This can also involve casual interviews and focus groups, asking their thoughts about the service-learning policy and whether they consider it necessary or functional. A formal process can involve organized focus groups, systematic interviews with established questions, surveys (pre- and post-), and observations from an outside party. It’s also encouraged that the council members document their own reflections about the process and whether they feel the policy is indeed meeting the vision and mission.
Legal Guidelines It is important to create legal guidelines that college staff, students, and community partners must follow in relation to service-learning. This protects the community at large as well as the college itself. Not all of the forms suggested are necessary, as it depends on how the college functions. However, this provides food for thought when analyzing the next step in productive service-learning. The college and community partners are encouraged to establish affiliation agreements that arrange a standard for both parties on student expectations, instructor responsibilities, and the community partner’s responsibilities (Elam et al., 2003). It is not uncommon for these stakeholders to retain liability waivers for protection against lawsuits. Another document is a confidentiality agreement, especially when students are working with a specific and protected population. This makes students aware that they should not share personal and private information about those they are serving. Additionally, a college may want to include a nondiscrimination clause to enforce the ethical principles of the college. This nondiscrimination clause commonly prohibits service-learning practitioners, faculty, and students involved in service-learning projects to discriminate against any individual person or group. More or less, this clause supports the awareness of a student’s own biases and prejudices when working with an underprivileged population. Lastly, the instructor should consider a document that allows the college to use the writing, photography, or video that may be prepared while finishing a service-learning project. The document should clearly explain how this information will be used, such as for educational purposes, research, or marketing for the college. The council and the college administration should evaluate what forms and documents they will need to protect them, the college, and the students at large.
Future Research A service-learning policy asks higher education administration to be accountable for service-learning and what it entails. As service-learning pedagogy is somewhat novel, the culture of the college may impede implementation of the policy. Needless to say, there needs to be more research on implementing policy successfully when the academic culture is not tolerant of such a policy. This might be the greatest challenge of all. However, if the council is conscious of this issue, then it can plan and prepare accordingly. This information is a valuable resource as other colleges and universities explore the merit of servicelearning pedagogy in their schools. Additionally, research should be done involving colleges that have experienced such policy controversy and what outcome occurred. Questions on a reasonable time frame, expected and surprising results from implementation, and change of attitude are interesting concepts that
18. Service-Learning Policy in Higher Education–•–133
should be further investigated. Organizations in the midst of policy implementation are also a source of information and additional research. By acknowledging the struggles they experienced, colleges can provide substantial knowledge for others following in their paths.
Conclusion Though service-learning is becoming a popular form of learning and teaching among small and large colleges and universities, many colleges still have not formally
References and Further Readings Bobrow, D. B., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy analysis design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Brigham Young University Idaho. (2001). BYU Idaho service– learning. Retrieved from http://www2.byui.edu/Service Learning/subpages/fgdefinition.htm Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221–239. Burke, K., Morris, K., & McGarrigle, L. (2012). An introductory guide to implementation. Dublin, Ireland: Centre for Effective Services. California Polytechnic State University. (2012). Campus administration policies. Retrieved from http://policy .calpoly.edu/cappolicy.htm Central Washington University. (n.d.). Academic service learning: Advisory committee. Retrieved from http://www .cwu.edu/service-learning/advisory-committee deLeon, P., & deLeon, L. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 467–492. Elam, C. L., Sauer, M. J., Stratton, T. D., Skelton, J., Crocker, D., & Musick, D. W. (2003). Service learning in the medical curriculum: Developing and evaluating an elective experience. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 15(3), 194–203. Gale, T., & Tranter, D. (2011). Social justice in Australian higher education policy: An historical and conceptual account of student participation. Critical Studies in Education, 52(1), 29–46. Guthrie, J. W. (1986). School-based management: The next needed education reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), 305–309. Johnston, S. W. (2003). Faculty governance and effective academic administrative leadership. New Directions for Higher Education, 2003(124), 57–63.
introduced service-learning into the college curriculum. By educating faculty and staff, more colleges may be inspired to initiate a service-learning policy to be added to the overall mission of the college. With a service-learning design constructed by a dedicated and committed advisory council, successful policy application can occur. An official and constructed service-learning policy formalizes the college’s intention to be engaged with its community. Faculty need to support this objective by understanding the concept of service-learning, embedding service-learning effectively into their curriculum, and engaging students in their communities.
Kendall, J. C. (1990). Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service. Vol. II. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Ministry of Agriculture and Food for Ontario, Canada. (2013). Creating effective agendas. Retrieved from http://www .omafra.gov.on.ca/english/rural/facts/05-037.htm National Youth Leadership Council. (n.d.). What is servicelearning? Retrieved from http://www.nylc.org Niederman, F., & Volkema, R. (1996, April). Influence of agenda creation and use on meeting activities and outcomes: Report on initial results. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS conference on computer personnel research (pp. 192–205). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Rhoades, G., & Sporn, B. (2002). Quality assurance in Europe and the US: Professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 43(3), 355–390. Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989, Fall). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40–57. Theodoulou, S. Z., & Kofinis, C. (2004). The art of the game: Understanding American public policy making. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. University of Wisconsin–Madison, Office of Human Resource Development. (2007). Best practices: Creating an actionable agenda. Retrieved from https://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/ AcademicLeadershipSupport/LeadMeetings/BestPractices/ CreatinganActionableAgenda/tabid/106/Default.aspx Witmer, J. T., & Anderson, C. S. (1994). How to establish a high school service learning program. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Zlotkowski, E. (1998). Successful service-learning programs: New models of excellence in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
19 AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON RELATIONSHIP-BASED SERVICE-LEARNING ANN MARIE JURSCA KEFFER Saint Joseph’s University
S
ervice-learning engages the whole student, developing their “competence, conscience and compassion” (International Commission [ICAJE], 1986) through a transformative educational pedagogy integrating intentionally designed community service work, academic rigor, and reflection opportunities. Necessary to creating this seamless education is contextualizing the community service work with academic theory and reflection opportunities. This integration allows service-learning students to develop both their academic skills as well as engage in personal value formation. One service-learning paradigm that fosters the development of the whole student of competence, conscience, and compassion focuses on relationship-based service. This chapter discusses an institutional approach to integrating a relationship-based model in service-learning. By examining the intentional design of community partnerships, multiple curricular examples, and the role of a service-learning center, this chapter offers one institution’s approach to implementing relationship-based servicelearning. Saint Joseph’s University (SJU) serves as the institutional example. SJU is a private, Catholic and Jesuit master’s level university located at the edge of metropolitan Philadelphia. In the Jesuit tradition of educating women and men with and for others, the SJU ServiceLearning program offers courses designed to rigorously challenge students intellectually, interpersonally, and intrapersonally. At SJU, relationship-based service stresses the importance of presence and human interaction over assigned tasks. Service time fulfills a community partner need, relates to course content and objectives, and provides
opportunities for students to develop authentic relationships with individuals served by the community partner. Authentic relationships foster students’ understanding of the complexities and issues addressed in traditional course texts through active listening and continuous substantive engagement with the same community partner throughout the semester. Aligning the mission of a Catholic Jesuit university and its focus on the common good, SJU service-learning students engage in such a service commitment with populations experiencing marginalization. Development of authentic relationships between college students and those living on the margins of society can allow for opportunities to explore race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic diversity issues depending on host institution and community partner organization demographics. Meaningful opportunities to develop such relationships depend on intentional design of campus-community collaborations.
Intentional Design of Community Partnerships Mutually beneficial campus-community collaborations are essential to good service-learning pedagogy. Reciprocal relationships address community partner organization needs and student academic learning goals to create a seamless educational experience. Furthermore, such relationships between community partner and institution of higher education need to be intentionally developed in order to facilitate effective and power-balanced collaborations. Reciprocal relationships are therefore the cornerstone 135
136–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
in creating a seamless education experience that addresses shared expectations and establish regularized communication processes. In such a process, community partner organizations and faculty have the opportunity to model relationship-based work from the onset of the partnership. At the very basic level, community partner and faculty expectations need to be shared, mutually agreed upon, and understood. Introductory questions for the community partner to consider include What are the current needs of the organization? Which of these can undergraduate students from the host institution fulfill or help advance? Realistically, how many students and when can the organization accommodate to maximize capacity building and prevent overburdening staff? Who will supervise these students?
In turn, faculty will need to understand the community context in order to integrate service experiences in course content. Basics such as community partner mission and institutional description are essential. The broader community context such as neighborhood culture and facts will further enhance faculty’s ability to analyze student responses and provide direct connections to academic theory. Introductory questions faculty should consider for match making of community partner organizations include What are the academic learning goals for the course? What are the civic learning goals for the course? What are the desired learning outcomes for students’ service work?
Once the institution of higher education’s and community partner organization’s roles are aligned, questions to consider include What learning goals can be designed to bridge academic and civic learning goals while integrating the student service role? How can the experience of being with (in contrast to doing a task for) marginalized populations enhance the understanding of course concepts and civic learning goals?
Effective communication between those involved in the planning process will allow for open discussion of both parties’ perspectives. Modeling a person-centered relationship, faculty and community partner organizations can exemplify this model through in-person (preferably in the community) discussion and conceptual collaborative envisioning of the student’s experience. Effective communication techniques, such as creating safe contexts for open dialogue, mirroring feelings, and paraphrasing ideas, foster mutuality and assist with action orientation initially and throughout the partnership (Patterson, Grenny, McMillan,
& Switzler, 2011). Through such dialogue, each participant can articulate his or her mission and goals allowing space for discussion where shared expectations, benefits, and academic connections can emerge. Active listening also allows space for the community partner organization’s voice further clarifying their role as an active agent in designing service-learning course experiences within the community context. At the very core of this process is the desire to create a seamless educational experience that uses mutually beneficial community person-centered experiences to enhance course concepts and student learning. The more seamless the experiences in the community and traditional class are, the better the application of servicelearning pedagogy.
Saint Joseph’s University Community Partnerships Located on the edge of metropolitan Philadelphia, the SJU Service-Learning Program collaborates with an average of 60 community partners per academic year. The majority of community partnerships are located in urban neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia. Mutually beneficial relationships between the university and community partners are required by SJU service-learning courses as per service-learning course criteria number three: 3. Reciprocity: Rooted in the Jesuit Way of Proceeding, mutually beneficial relationships between the University and community partners reflect right relationships. “To the extent that we develop a wide-ranging web of respectful and productive relationships, we fulfill Christ’s priestly prayer that they may all be one” (General Congregation 34: 551, 17.) All servicelearning courses thus engage in mutually beneficial relationships. (Saint Joseph’s University, 2010)
Relationship-Based Partnerships: Course Selections in Practice The core collaborators involved in service-learning courses are quite diverse—including students and faculty of all disciplines, professional staff members with varying backgrounds, and community partner organizations working in a plethora of different sectors addressing many social issues. To this end, brief course examples of best practices highlighting the application of relationship-based service in international, preprofessional, and traditional arts and sciences follow.
Youth, Culture and Deviance The sociology course called Youth, Culture and Deviance offers economic, cultural, political, and social perspectives on American youths based on sociological theories. Students enrolled are challenged to articulate
19. An Institutional Perspective on Relationship-Based Service-Learning–•–137
and apply sociological theories to specific youth social problems such as bullying, homelessness, and gang involvement; understand key state and national policies affecting these social problems and social systems; and explore concepts of systemic injustice through analysis of their service experiences and academic texts. The first time the course was offered as a service-learning course, a local high school was also opening its doors. The school was a natural fit with the course topics as the high school students came from economically poor communities throughout the region and the school’s mission centered on the enrichment and development of student potentials while providing a holistic educational environment. The university’s service-learning placement coordinator met with a school official who was knowledgeable about the integrative nature of service-learning pedagogy. Employing the relationship-based model previously described, it was mutually agreed that the best match was for service-learning students to tutor during study hall. University students worked one on one with the high school students on homework help while building relationships week after week with the same students. This allowed the high school students to share stories of their home life, educational hopes, and leisure time experiences with the university students. As university students learned of social factors and identity development in class, their service experiences provided complementary personal accounts from the high school youths. Furthermore, through informal conversations, university students shared aspects of their own life, especially college life. Additionally through ongoing communication between the faculty member and community partner organization, the high school counselor was identified as a class presenter on teen suicide prevention. While engaged in the community, the university students completed tasks such as homework help or introducing study aids with the high school youths. This allowed university students to gain insights on the potential and challenges of the youths’ academic skill set. Back on campus, course content made connections to factors that place students at risk and to several course themes. The university students’ reflections centered not on the assigned tasks (the homework itself) but rather on the formal and informal interactions with the youths. Through getting to know the high school youths and experiencing life through their 14-year-old lenses, university students were able to make micro- and mesolevel connections on course concepts such as gang membership.
community partner organization needs while maintaining the strategy of relationship-based service for student learning and development. Students who enroll in the course come from majors in both the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Business. They voluntarily elect to enroll in this course typically as pharmaceutical marketing majors or natural science majors. Characteristically, all students in the course are interested in health-related careers with a patient-centered focus. The students learn about different health-care delivery models in various countries. Their service experience is with a local nonprofit wellness center. At the beginning of the semester, students are grouped into teams of three to five students and meet with the community partner organization’s supervisor who, through discussion with the faculty member, identifies projects for each team to complete during the course of the semester. One such project example was to examine the correlation between children’s attendance at a fitness program and their physical and mental health outcomes when the fitness program concluded. Students recorded body mass indices and attendance and reported mental health statuses throughout the term. At the conclusion of the semester, students analyzed the data and created a report for the wellness center that was utilized in the program’s review. The development of appropriate relationships did not solely come from the few minutes of data collection each week but also included the university students’ participation in the fitness program with the children. Through active play and rest periods, university students learned about children’s community and home environments and acted as role models. The university students gained a holistic perspective of the children’s life: view of community environment including access to nutritional resources that complemented the data on mental and physical health assessments. The community partner organization received a deliverable “project” created by the university students in addition to the opportunity for presence-based services. In addition to supervision and evaluation of the communitybased project implementation that occurs throughout the semester, the community partner also contributed to each student’s academic improvement by evaluating the student’s service-learning work from the community usefulness perspective at the conclusion of the semester. The faculty member and community partner collaborated together and determined grades for students’ service project, which represented 40% of the total course grade.
Patient Access to Health Care
The international service-learning course Just Health Care in Developing Nations is offered through the Theology and Interdisciplinary Health Services departments. The course content examines access to health care in the developing world through both a Christian medical ethics as well as public health-care perspective. The course meets on campus for full semester course contact hours and includes
The Patient Access to Health Care course is housed through SJU’s Pharmaceutical Marketing Department. It offers another model of a project-based, relationship-based service-learning practice. Project-based, relationshipbased service-learning clearly demonstrates meeting
Just Health Care in Developing Nations
138–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
an immersion in a country in Latin America over winter break. Students enrolled in the course come from a variety of majors but are primarily pre-health care. Students’ immersion experiences include being with marginalized communities and direct service work through clinics such as fluoride and dermatological care or high school biology and chemistry instruction. When appropriate, in-kind and monetary donations are provided for host communities. Being with communities allows students to listen, observe, and begin to contemplate the personal impacts of lack of access to preventative health care, sanitation, and clean water, and the subsequent power of community transformation when such services are available. Much of their preprofessional training has reinforced the notion that students need to have technical answers. Thus, when students encounter human suffering and vast social inequality their first-world technical answers and mindset do not always suffice to address the health-care needs at hand. Subsequently, without solutions, students are challenged to explore notions of a common humanity and their own vulnerability. Through daily group reflection, students process their uncomfortable feelings, directly speaking of individuals’ suffering and lack of access to resources, as well as deepening of their own empathy and compassion. Service-learning practice promotes the potential for emotional development such as empathy and compassion as common characteristics in student experiences (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Langstraat & Bowdon, 2011). Thus for students in Just Health Care in Developing Nations, their experiences bring to life the human impact of diseases and statistics learned in the course in a visible and overt manner that through reflection necessitates personal value exploration. Conversations on the meaning of solidarity, distributive health-care resourcing, and personal responsibility reoccur during evening group reflection sessions— this time contextualized by the people and communities the students have visited. Through group reflection, faculty and community members challenge students to identify their professional, civic, and personal responsibilities to the needs of the marginalized in the developing world. Additionally, such processing of person-focused community-based experiences can allow students to learn practical responses to real human needs in resource scarce environments. By processing the personal suffering while examining community strengths, students are challenged to reflect on their own responsibility given the experience. Ingenious responses such as adopting a developing-world primary-prevention model to meet the health-care needs of the immigrant communities in the United States (Clark & Surry, 2007) are generated. Such creative interventions symbolize the potential synergies of collaboration in international service-learning experiences.
Moral Philosophy Students enrolled in the Moral Philosophy course are engaged in learning about the moral experience, including
critically examining moral issues and theoretical frameworks of moral reasoning and developing their ability to reason philosophically. Students in the course engage in service three hours weekly beyond the regular course meeting hours. All community work is relationship based. Students can serve meals and interact at a day program for men who are homeless and single parent families experiencing homelessness, work with at-risk youths in the classroom as teacher assistants, work as companions during activities with people suffering from mental illness, and provide homework help to teens in a juvenile justice center. The benefits to the community partner organizations are reflected in the design of the volunteer role. The university students process their service experiences as additional information to course content, such as a selection from John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” or Immanuel Kant’s central principle of “respect for persons as ends in themselves.” Through written assignments, students apply the theoretical frameworks of moral reasoning to the moral issues they witness in their weekly service experiences. Thus, the facelessness of homelessness or the stigma of mental illness become moral issues personally encountered through human interaction and processed in light of moral theory and reasoning. Therefore, students develop as ethical moral agents debating current moral issues with the personal accounts of the people they are bonded to at service, people who are marginalized in society, at the forefront of discussion. The complexities of these issues are highlighted both by development of relationships with people at their service placement as well as by academic theory, with the end goal of helping students to develop the tools to live intentional and moral lives. Depending on the discipline and community need, students employ academic and preprofessional skills for the benefit of the community partner organization in cumulative projects. The additional relationship-based service component fosters student’s civic learning goals and personal development around social justice issues while benefiting community partner clientele through the power of presence. Additional opportunities to create collaborative, person-centered relationships between community partner organizations and the university include both structured and unstructured opportunities for communication and feedback on mutuality (Jacoby, 1996). This feedback should include both assessment of student work at the community partner organization as well as continuous meeting of community partner organization’s needs. A structured example employed in the Youth, Culture and Deviance course utilizes a student evaluation where community partners assess the students’ contributions to their placement, such as their overall performance, dependability, initiative, and growth as a student volunteer. Furthermore, the faculty member synthesizes this information with course integration assignments (journal entries, quiz questions, discussions) to determine a portion of the student’s final grade. Likewise, regular communication
19. An Institutional Perspective on Relationship-Based Service-Learning–•–139
and accessibility of and by the university contact (faculty member or partnership’s coordinator) can allow opportunities for the community partner organization to identify challenges before they become major problems, can allow for feedback on student “performance” at service, and can create the desired mutually beneficial relationship for both the community and the university.
Institutional Support The Role of the Service-Learning Center The campus service-learning center can provide the impetus and resources to faculty and students necessary for framing relationship-based service. Faculty, specialized in their academic disciplines who are new to teaching service-learning, will need resources on the pedagogy. Service-learning centers can serve as the clearinghouse for faculty development. Resources on topics such as reflection and processing can provide pedagogical frameworks that through discussion and conversation can be utilized to meet course and program goals while processing the personal reflections of being in relationship with marginalized persons. One such model, the 4C’s (Continuous, Connected, Challenging, and Contextualized) outlined by Janet Eyler, Dwight E. Giles, and Angela Schmiede (1996) can provide a reflection framework adaptable to any discipline. In relationship-based service, this framework allows processing of relational stories, the weekly human interactions, garnered from service experiences to be connected to academic content, challenging student’s value formation and offering meaningful processing opportunities. Additionally, classroom communities of mutual respect and confidence model authentic relationships and create a learning environment facilitating personal value exploration and civic learning (International Commission, 1986). Discussions facilitated by the service-learning center become contextualized within the service-learning pedagogy and can focus on how to extract students’ personal value formation in conjunction with relational service experiences and academic learning. Additionally, service-learning centers can serve as a clearinghouse and coordinating body of best practices on campus. Today, the sharing of syllabi, sample assignments, reflection tools, among others, is made easier by technology. Most campuses have the ability to create rules for internal websites regulating posting of materials and group membership if faculty prefer increased privacy and oversight. Furthermore, applying the principle of relationshipbased service to faculty development, SJU ServiceLearning Program offers service-learning faculty opportunities to participate in learning communities. SJU’s learning communities are small groups of service-learning faculty who meet over a meal twice a semester, paid for by the program. Similar to relationship-based service, the
meeting is person centered and strengths based: All constituents have valuable information that can foster understanding of service-learning pedagogy. The meal’s only requirement is the discussion of service-learning pedagogy in action: challenges, best practices, questions, resources, experience sharing. The meals allow for appropriate relationships to develop, collegiality to be shared, and resources to be exchanged, making this SJU’s most successful faculty development opportunity for both new and experienced service-learning faculty. Service-learning centers can also be the source for establishing the understanding and expectations of relationship-based service. If the center manages the community partnerships, dissemination of community partner description, class syllabi, student volunteer roles, and previous class examples can facilitate the work of both faculty and community partners. Furthermore, with established trust and ongoing collaboration, the center can facilitate introductions and dialogue between community partner organizations and faculty igniting the connection. Additionally, mandatory student trainings that address logistics and risk management are often facilitated or at least outlined by service-learning centers. Discussions of logistics can include the general description of relationship-based service as well as provide important cultural and contextual information of such a service experience. With the many high schools that now call for a service requirement, often fulfilled in task-oriented service or service with limited or no reflection, the distinction of relationship-based service may be a challenging new concept. Furthermore, these trainings can also include structured opportunities to begin discussing concepts such as cultural lens, value perspectives, and introduction to characteristics of solidarity, including empathy and compassion. Such discussion topics establish the tone of relationship-based service, stressing the importance and strengths base of “the other” before students begin their experiences in the community. It also provides a foundation of core concepts for both trained student leaders and faculty to follow up on in class discussions or journal prompts facilitating student civic learning.
Conclusion Relationship-based service fosters the development of the whole student of “competence, conscience and compassion” (International Commission, 1986). Intentional design of mutually beneficial community partnerships is an essential design of service-learning pedagogy (Howard, 2001; Jacoby, 1996). It is of utmost importance to evaluate the needs of the community and the match with student skill set to determine if relationship-based service promotes reciprocal partnerships. Curricular examples of solely relationship-based service as well as when combined with project-based service both foster student learning while meeting community partner organization needs.
140–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
Service-learning centers can facilitate mutually beneficial partnerships that are person centered in process modeling relationship-based service for students. Furthermore, service-learning centers can establish the culture of person-centered service through process modeling and by dissemination of expectations, training, and information
on relationship-based service to all constituents, community partner organizations, faculty, and students. Combined with good service-learning pedagogy, relationship-based service can provide a countercultural framework for students to understand abstract course concepts through a person-centered approach.
References and Further Readings
International Commission on the Apostolate of Jesuit Education. (1986). The characteristics of Jesuit education. Retrieved from http://www.sjweb.info/documents/education/ characteristics_en.pdf Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jacoby, B. (2003). Fundamentals of service-learning partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building Partnerships for Service-Learning (pp. 1–19). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Langstraat, L., & Bowdon, M. (2011). Service-learning and critical emotion studies: On the perils of empathy and the politics of compassion. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 17(2), 5–14. Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Crucial conversations tools for talking when the stakes are high (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Pribbenow, D. A. (2005). The impact of service-learning pedagogy on faculty teaching and learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(2), 25–38. Saint Joseph’s University, The Faith-Justice Institute. (2010). Service-learning: Course core criteria. Retrieved from http://www.sju.edu/int/academics/centers/faithjustice/ servicelearning/docs/SLR%20Criteria%20Final%20 rev%202.16.10.pdf Stanton, T., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Cruz, N. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers reflect on its origins, practice and future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Varlotta, L. (2000). Service as text: Making the metaphor meaningful. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 7, 76–84. Zlotkowski, E., Longo, N., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2006). Students as colleagues. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
American Association of Higher Education and Accreditation. (1997–2005). Series on service-learning in the disciplines. Retrieved from http://www.aahea.org/aahea/ Byrne, P. H. (1995). Paradigms of justice and love. Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, 7(1), 1–13. Retrieved from http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol7/iss1/3 Campus Compact. (n.d.). Program models campus community partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/ category/program-models/program-models-campuscommunity-partnerships-andor-campuscorporate community-partnerships/ Clark, P., & Surry, L. (2007). Mercy health promoters: A paradigm for implementing third world practices for resource-poor conditions in the developed world. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 13(3), 1–8. Delano-Oriaran, O. (2014). Engaging pre-service teachers in diverse communities through service-learning: A practical guide for application. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(2), 186–188. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Schmiede, A. (1996). A practitioner’s guide to reflection: Student voices and reflections. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service. Howard, J. (2001). Service-learning course design workbook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Office of Community Service Learning Press.
20 CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE WHEN STUDYING “DEVIANT” POPULATIONS HELEN ROSENBERG University of Wisconsin–Parkside
D
eviance is a relative term often applied to social categories of people who breach the boundaries of shared social norms and, in most cases, evoke disapproval from others. This might be a consequence of personal attributes, as in the case of older adults who are stigmatized in our youth driven culture, or a consequence of actions considered deviant, as in the case of sex workers or people who are drug dependent. These categories of people are marginalized by much of society. One consequence of marginalization is that little is known of their lives, apart from societal misconceptions or media portrayal of stereotypes. Another consequence of marginalization is that these categories of people lack the power to change others’ views of themselves: Their deviance sets them apart from “normals,” and they become part of a hidden population. In either case, our understanding of these populations, based in negative stereotypes, creates suspicion, mistrust, and fear. Sociologists who teach courses in deviance or courses that study marginalized groups are challenged to normalize these populations to students. Yet, students’ fears upon learning that they will have to interact with people they consider deviant are palpable and fueled by their own isolation from interaction with these groups. This chapter features a pedagogical approach that uses service-learning as a means of removing synthetic distinctions between normal and deviant in a sociology course at the University of Wisconsin–Parkside (UW–Parkside).
The Sociology of Mental Illness The Sociology of Mental Illness course focuses on the system of care provided for people with mental illness.
Throughout the semester, readings and course discussions are coordinated with students’ experiences on their project through written and oral reflection. The course syllabus states, It is imperative that as a student of mental illness, you interact and learn from people who have a mental illness . . . Toward that goal, we will be working with the Racine Friendship Clubhouse (RFC) to conduct a number of focus group discussions with people diagnosed with a mental illness and service providers to learn how this agency can improve services for this population.
The course approach views people with mental illness, not as subjects to be studied, but as co-partners in a learning process. This chapter focuses on student engagement with this population and describes the process by which students revise their understanding of what people with mental illness experience. Some students in Sociology of Mental Illness come into the course with a strong belief that people with mental illness are dangerous. This is based on strong media focus on individual acts of aggression by those with a mental illness and is generalized to the entire category of people. For example, one month prior to the start of this course, Jared Loughner killed six people and critically injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. In addition to the media coverage on Loughner, movies such as The Silence of the Lambs stoke perceptions that people with mental illness are, as a group, more violent than the general population (Coverdale, Coverdale, & Nairn, 2013). While students didn’t express these fears at the beginning of the semester, they were more forthcoming by semester’s end through their written reflections. One student comments, “I was afraid that people with mental 141
142–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
illness (not all) were violent. I was afraid that I was going to catch myself looking at them and judging them by their illness.”
The Methodology of Engagement In traditional classrooms, student learning is bounded by the texts, lectures, and in-class discussions. This is an artificial milieu in which to learn. It objectifies the voices of those studied by giving them others’ representations of their own reality. At times, the information solidifies existing stereotypes despite attempts to dispel those stereotypes. Faculty can recontextualize students’ realities by involving them in community-based learning (CBL), a term commonly used to connote service-learning. While the terms are different, the practice of each may not be. Both are listed in one category of high-impact practices by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U; www .aacu.org/leap/hip.cfm). CBL is a preferred term at UW–Parkside because it credits community as integral to the learning process, but the practice of CBL is interchangeable with the practice of service-learning. The goal in using this methodology is to meld classroom and experiential learning to maximize student learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999). By addressing multiple sources on a topic—such as texts, media portrayals, and the people who are being studied—perspective is added to knowledge and objectification of understanding becomes relative and transformative. Much of the learning that takes place as part of CBL is within the following specified parameters: 1. The community-based learning activity must be linked to course readings and objectives. 2. Explicit learning outcomes must be defined for students. 3. Community partners are seen as co-educators and have say in what students learn as part of their experience. Optimally, community partners help teach the class and develop the syllabus for the course. 4. All stakeholders are involved in the assessment of student learning. 5. There must be a product, project, placement, or presentation (the four P’s) produced as a result of the CBL experience that has value to the community partner. 6. Students must have the opportunity to reflect on their experiences.
In the following sections, as the specified parameters required of CBL are noted, pertinent text will be italicized and the corresponding number will follow in parentheses.
Stakeholders in Engagement The aforementioned parameters of CBL acknowledge stakeholders in the learning-research-outcome process: students, faculty, and community partners. This paradigm
of learning has transformed how many view scholarship (Boyer, 1990). For one, traditional power relationships change. Project agenda and outcomes result from agreements among multiple stakeholders, and this process levels power differentials (Holland & Gelmon, 1998). Faculty have less control over student activities and act more as consultants. The onus of learning shifts from faculty- to student-centered and becomes more collaborative in nature (Hansen & Silver, 1998). Student learning outcomes are determined, in part, by their ability to problem solve, work professionally with the target group under study (Barr & Tagg, 1995), reflect on their experiences (Schön, 1995), and finally produce a product for partners that addresses community needs, goals, and policies for action. Moreover, students gain responsibility for teaching themselves and other students as well as negotiating with community partners regarding project process and outcomes (Konwerski & Nashman, 2002). Any product, that is, paper or formal presentation, can no longer be viewed as an empirical “truth,” as it is influenced by the values of special interest groups that affect project outcomes (Berberet, 2002). Teaching the sociology of mental illness involves communicating to students the impact of being labeled and then segregated from others. Textbooks are secondary sources that have reconceptualized primary sources and provide a fact-based approach to studying mental illness, one devoid of the nuance of perspective. Often, people with a mental illness are portrayed as victims, with the understanding that their diagnoses and their symptomatology are part of their identities for life. By using these texts and teaching from this perspective, faculty work within the traditional framework of viewing this population from a “problem perspective” (Goodwin, 1997). The challenge for faculty is to make believable to students that mental illness is a continuum of behaviors that in some cases is not distinguishable from what is called normal and to credit this population for advocacy that has changed professional and service provider views of their capabilities. The foundation for understanding advocacy is through direct contact.
A Case Study in Community-Based Learning The Partnership With a Community Agency The Racine Friendship Clubhouse, Inc. (RFC) in Racine, Wisconsin, is one community agency that provides vocational rehabilitation and supports social integration for people with mental illness. Established in 1991, the clubhouse trains its members in computer skills, cooking, writing, and appropriate social interaction. In the afternoon, it serves lunch and acts as a drop-in center, but it also organizes field trips for its members to sports events, movies, and other cultural programs. The executive director of RFC, Jo Ann Rodriguez, was interested in learning ways to improve the agency’s existing services and what new services members would like to see offered.
20. Connecting Theory to Practice When Studying “Deviant” Populations–•–143
Additionally, she wanted to learn how aware service providers were of resources RFC offered. Rodriguez asked Luann Simpson, Program Director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness—Consumer Advocacy Team (NAMI-CAT) to consult on the project as an advocate for people with mental illness. Prior to the beginning of the semester, both worked with the author to construct the CBL project (3). We talked about the needs of RFC and how to best achieve its desired goals. We then mapped out an implementation plan, including plans to conduct focus groups and how members and service providers would be recruited for this study. Rodriguez agreed to provide food and drinks, secured a local church for meetings, developed a flier to recruit participants, and sent the flier to members of the RFC. Simpson recruited members from NAMI. In this way, the community partners helped to develop the syllabus for the course addressing community needs, but also worked with the professor of the course in determining learning outcomes for students (2). This project was responsive to the needs of the RFC at the time. However, each time this course is taught, student projects vary in response to different community needs. In all cases, faculty and community partners confer on project goals and implementation, ensuring that learning outcomes for students are met.
Overview of Course Syllabi The CBL activity involved interacting with people diagnosed with a mental illness who were living in the community. Two texts that addressed concerns of people in a deinstitutionalized system of health care were required reading for the course. One, In Recovery, by Nora Jacobson (2004), is specific to policy issues in Wisconsin, and the second, Making It Crazy, by Sue Estroff (1981), examines the lives of people living in supported community housing in Madison, Wisconsin. Using texts that addressed deinstitutionalized systems of care specific to Wisconsin linked the readings to course objectives and future activities in the class (1). Additionally, most of the students at UW–Parkside come from southeastern Wisconsin and will return there to work, so learning about this population provided students the opportunity to fulfill geographic community needs. The syllabus reads, We will examine the system of care for people with a mental illness with a focus on the State of Wisconsin. We will examine how our services for people with mental illness have changed and look at a number of movements that have impacted care on the state and individual levels.
Additionally, student participation in CBL is explicitly stated in the syllabus. It reads, Traditionally, teaching has been a mostly private relationship between student and teacher with students learning through a combination of lectures, in-class activities and assessment
through tests and papers. As part of the mission of our university to connect with community, my teaching commitment is to you, the student, but also to community. I believe that learning is enhanced through community participation and in that belief, I not only see myself as your teacher, but believe that your learning can be enhanced through experience.
Furthermore, explicit learning outcomes for the course were specified (2). For example, one conceptual learning outcome was to “demonstrate an understanding of cultures and societies in their own terms.” Students were asked to take the perspective of “the other” in understanding service needs for people with mental illness. A methodological learning outcome was to “frame and execute a research project.” In class, students developed the study and execution in cooperation with the community partners. Lastly, a civic learning outcome was to “gain competence in effective collaboration and teamwork.” Students divided tasks among themselves and formed work groups. In the case of this project, four focus groups were identified: • people who received services from RFC; • people who had been active with RFC at one time but dropped out of the program; • people who had never participated in the program but were members of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); and • service providers from local hospitals and mental health centers.
Students learned about the purpose and structure of focus group discussions, wrote a program description, and crafted an informed consent form to send to the university Institutional Review Board (IRB) for permission to conduct the study, developed questions and probes to be asked at the focus group meetings for each group, and then participated in one focus group discussion. Various roles were assigned to students (facilitator, note takers, observers, and food and beverage servers). Despite the various roles, all were instructed to ask questions and probes throughout the discussions. Students who were observers and servers coded discussion notes into themes that note takers completed and wrote the first draft of the final report from the coded notes. The entire class reviewed the draft and one class session was spent providing feedback to the writers who completed the final product, a report to RFC (5).
Class Preparation for Community Engagement Meeting With the Community Agency Early in the semester, students were introduced to the project. The following week, Executive Director Jo Ann Rodriguez attended class, presented a profile of the agency, provided handouts and discussed the agency’s needs. In addition, a six-member group from RFC came to class for a mock focus group discussion with students. A small group of students conducted the focus group while
144–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
the rest of the class observed. Student observers and the six members from RFC provided feedback to students on how to more effectively gain information through a focus group format. Members from RFC talked about how students should respond to people who are mentally ill. Students received feedback from RFC members and from Rodriguez after the mock focus group, so they were involved in the assessment of student learning (4). Focus Groups In spring 2011, the Sociology of Mental Illness class (n = 31) conducted focus group discussions with the four designated categories of people. However, the class conducted five discussions. At the meeting with current RFC members, there were so many in attendance that members were divided into two groups and met in different rooms of the church. In response, students in attendance changed roles and split into two groups. All focus group discussions were completed over a three-week period. Attendance at these groups varied to a great extent and one evening group had as many as 10 students with three conducting the group (facilitator and two note takers) and seven serving food and observing the discussion.
Community Engagement Product This class produced a product, which was the final report to RFC (5). There are other CBL classes that engage in projects that may not culminate in final reports but still meet the goals of CBL. For example, students may complete reflective papers as part of placements in the community, present outcomes in an informal fashion through presentations, or develop tangibles for an agency (e.g., a logo and motto for a NAMI chapter).
Students’ Experiences At the end of the semester, students and the community partner completed surveys that assessed their experiences with the class project. Twenty-nine of the students in the course responded to the student survey. Almost 90% agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements: • The community project helped me understand the subject matter and how it can be used in everyday life. • The community organization contributed to my understanding of this project. • I worked directly with a community partner and/or faculty member through this course. • The community project helped me become aware of my personal strengths and weaknesses. • The community work involved in this project made me more aware of my own biases and prejudices.
Only 17% felt that the community project took time away from important class work.
Rodriguez’s response to the project was solicited through the Center for Community Partnerships, the university program responsible for project matching and assessment of CBL experiences for students, faculty, and community partners. She completed her survey online. She responded “very satisfied” to the following: The quality of the students’ work, scope and timing of the project, level and quality of communication with faculty/staff, and level of quality of communication with the students. When asked about the most positive aspect of the project, she states, “The services offered to nonprofits by the Center for Community Partnerships are most valuable. The student projects are also very helpful resources.” She also stated, The project was a good one. We needed the information. We wanted the public to be queried. The material we received from the project was good and beneficial. The only problem, however, was that the results were delayed in coming to us and they could not be used by the consultants in our strategic planning project because we didn’t receive the results until July 28 even though the sessions were held in the spring. The information is still useful; it just could have been an important part of the other project had it been compiled and sent to us sooner. The weakest part of this project was that I held up the final report until I reviewed it and made revisions. I did not realize there was an anticipated due date for the report. While I believed there was good communication with the community partner, it was still lacking from the perspective of RFC. The challenge for faculty is coordinating learning goals with service goals to satisfy both faculty and community partners.
At the end of the semester, students reflected on their experiences (6) by answering the following questions: “How has this CBL experience changed you as a person?” and “What concerns/fears did you have prior to your focus group experience and how have these concerns changed?” Five themes emerged that reflected their experiences: empathy, removal of stigma, education, professional/career development, and empowerment/activism. Empathy A number of students noted that they have a better understanding of people with mental illness and can now understand that stigmatizing this population is unwarranted. One student writes, “This project gave insight to a new group of people and has softened my heart even more.” Another says, “It opened my eyes to another viewpoint that I had never been exposed to. I think that it helped me grow and learn about a group of people that has a bad reputation for really no reason.” There was clear polarization between students and the study population when this course began. The goal for the semester was for students to achieve the ability to “take the role of the other.”
20. Connecting Theory to Practice When Studying “Deviant” Populations–•–145
Removal of Stigma Six students in the class specifically mentioned that they were less judgmental about people with a mental illness than they had been before. One student writes, It gave me a different view/perspective on people with mental illness. As a society, we tend to have stigma on people with illness and this experience gave me a “one-on-one” view of them, which totally changed the way I see them now.
Another says, I used to view these people as completely unaware of reality and unable to think on their own which I now know is not always the case. People are very able to understand and tell their opinions and are not too “psychotic” to realize that they are being treated unfairly. They are very much intelligent and our friends. I would now feel more comfortable volunteering w/ and helping these people outside of class.
It is likely that some of the cultural sensitivity to this population has diminished with time. Yet, knowledge of the “other” can be reinforced through repeated interactions with other marginalized groups, resulting in lessening of stigma. Education Students reported learning firsthand about mental illness. One says, This experience has brought me much more knowledge and understanding about those who deal with mental illness. I think this has been one of the most eye opening projects I’ve had at UWP and I’m glad I got to be a part of it.
Students learned the importance of community supports for vulnerable populations. One writes, “I learned about RFC and the importance of having support systems like this in the community.” Students learned the value of community-based learning. One says, The CBL experience has made me much more aware of the prevalence of certain issues in the community. I’ve always said you can only learn so much from a text book, but to experience something first hand allows you to gain a whole different type of knowledge.
It is faculty’s role to provide the venue and the context and for students to learn on their own. From my own perspective, once students were outside the protected environment of the classroom, they truly seemed more vulnerable yet empowered through their responsibility to RFC. As they conducted the focus group discussions, they were on their own. Participants in the focus groups from RFC made students feel at ease. One person told students that her finger twitching was from the medications she took. In class, we spoke about the side effects from psychotropic
drugs, but this was difficult to understand until students were actually confronted with these behaviors. Professional/Career Development Students reported that this experience would help them with their future careers and developing professional skills. One says, Working with RFC has really opened my eyes to people with mental illness. I had no previous experience in this area so I learned a great deal. This was also my first focus group which taught me how to interact and work as a team in a professional setting.
Others clarified career goals. One writes, It served to cement my future career goals. I am intending to enter a field that emphasizes community education, especially in underprivileged/stigmatized communities. Participating in the focus groups (even the whole class) really helped open my eyes to the needs of the community.
Empowerment/Activism Lastly, students reported a call to make things better than they are, with one writing that “it has made me think deeper about the struggles people w/ mental illnesses go through and has made me want to reach out and make a change.” In response to the question, “What concerns/ fears did you have prior to your focus group experience and how have these concerns changed?” students were primarily afraid of people’s reactions to their questions in the focus groups. Were the questions too intrusive or prying and how would participants respond? Others were concerned about how they presented themselves, for example, being a shy person might be perceived as not caring or being disengaged. Some were concerned with reactions from the group, with one saying, “I was concerned that the participants wouldn’t want us asking about their experiences, but I was surprised at how open they were.” One student was frightened of this population: “I was more scared of the mentally ill and thought they were ‘bad’ people. This class has changed my perspective a lot; so much that I think I might want to work with them as a profession” (emphasis in original). About half the students said they had no concerns. Every teacher aspires to have students experience the aha moment, that time when students get it—the major point of the substance of the course. But the aha moment must be personally experienced and often, faculty just wait. For students, that moment is of varying intensity and comes at various times. In this class, it came from empowering students to understand that what we learned in our readings reflected reality for people with mental illness. The in-class learning and the active experience go hand in hand to create that moment.
146–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
References and Further Readings Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12–26. Berberet, J. (2002). Nurturing an ethos of community engagement. New Directions for Teaching Learning, 2002(90), 91–100 Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Coverdale, J. H., Coverdale, S. M., & Nairn, R. (2013). “Behind the mug shot grin”: Uses of madness-talk in reports of Loughner’s mass killing. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 37 (3), 200–216. Estroff, S. E. (1985). Making it crazy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodwin. A. L. (1997). Historical and contemporary perspectives on multicultural teacher education. In J. King, E. Hollins, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Preparing teachers for
cultural diversity (pp. 5–22). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hansen, J. R., & Silver, H. F. (1998). Learning styles and strategies Who am I as a: learner? teacher? What are my: assets? liabilities? How can I work more effectively with: students? teachers? parents? administrators? Trenton, NJ: Thoughtful Education Press. Holland, B. A., & Gelmon, S. B. (1998). The state of the “engaged campus”: What have we learned about building and sustaining university-community partnerships? American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, October, 3(6), 105–108. Jacobson, N. (2004). In recovery. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Konwerski, P., & Nashman, H. (2002). Who teaches whom: The varied voices and instructional roles of community service-learning partners. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 10(2), 165–186. Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 27–34.
21 PREPARING STUDENTS TO ENGAGE IN RESEARCH IN THE REAL WORLD How to Construct a Course in Community-Based Participatory Research
T
KAREN SCHWARTZ
ADJE VAN DE SANDE
Carleton University
Carleton University
his chapter takes the reader through a step-by-step process of how to develop and implement a research course for students to learn about and engage in community-based participatory research (CBPR). For the past five years, we have co-taught the required research course to master of social work students at a Canadian university. This full year course (September– April) is structured so that students in small groups engage in research with community organizations. This chapter focuses on using and applying academic servicelearning and civic engagement methods. Based on our experiences and the research that we have conducted to date, we discuss the barriers we have encountered and overcome in teaching this course. We teach the course from a structural social work and anti-oppressive perspective. A structural social work perspective views individual problems as situated within alienating social structures. In a similar vein, an anti-oppressive perspective (AOP) focuses on how these social structures contribute to the oppression of vulnerable members of society and the need to change oppressive aspects at all levels of society. Antioppressive practice is an umbrella term encompassing a number of social justice oriented approaches. It draws on social activism and collective organizing. These perspectives are interwoven in our teaching practices and in our emphasis on participatory research and are interwoven in our chapter.
Literature Review Universities have incorporated CBPR as a form of service-learning to educate students and engage the community. CBPR is research that links university scholarly resources with those in the public and private sector to enrich knowledge, help solve critical social issues, and contribute to the public good (Stanton, 2008). It seeks to democratize knowledge by validating multiple sources of information and promoting the use of multiple methods of research, with the ultimate goal of social action (Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003). Civic engagement is achieved through the participatory aspect of CBPR as members of the community and those most affected by the critical social problem participate in the research activities. CBPR has been incorporated into numerous pedagogical strategies including research courses (Peters & Gray, 2007), service-learning (Lopatto, 2010), graduate theses (Ryser, Markey, & Halseth, 2013), and student research assistantships with community agencies (Savan, 2004). One of the major benefits of incorporating CBPR into research courses is that it makes research “real” for students (Hyde & Meyer, 2004) and better prepares them to engage in collaborative research (Ryser et al., 2013). A number of studies have shown other positive outcomes for students from these initiatives, such as creating a greater appreciation for research (King, 147
148–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
2006), increasing the appeal of working in the nonprofit and public sector (Goss, Gastwirth, & Parkash, 2010), and developing students’ citizenship skills (Ryser et al., 2013) and activism skills (O’Shea, 2012). Some scholars (Stanton, 2008) have argued that the more collaborative the research process is between the university and community partners, the more effective it is, both as scholarship and as service to society. Sarah Flicker (2008) found that there are benefits in engaging in CBPR in terms of the quality of the research and sense of accomplishment of the various stakeholders, including community members. Students who work in partnership with community organizations develop an enhanced sense of citizenship and civic engagement.
Definition of Terms For CBPR, as defined earlier, to be truly engaged and of high quality, engagement must take place in the development of the research question, throughout the research process, and in the completion of the research product. Kathleen Weigert (1998) describes the key element of service-learning, which combines classroom content with community service, as the student producing meaningful work as defined by the community. Looking at CBPR and service-learning through this lens, CBPR as service-learning seems to be a good fit. Lastly, Timothy Stanton (2008) envisions outputs of CBPR that lead to concrete action, changed practice, changed policies, and various means of knowledge mobilization including academic, popular, and community specific publications. Weigert (1998) would see these as outputs of service learning as well.
Course Preparation and Description Develop Network of Community Contacts and Agencies Before developing our research course, we needed to create and maintain a network of contacts with agencies and community organizations with which to partner. This was a very important step because without these contacts there is no way for us to solicit requests for research. We began by looking at lists of contacts that may already exist within our department. We utilized an email list of field placements as well as lists of any organizations that we had worked with in the past to plan events. We drew upon the contacts made by fellow faculty members who often sit on the boards of directors of community organizations or are involved in other forms of volunteer work, mentoring, or advising. Creating a list of these organizations and contact people is invaluable.
Contact With Agencies to Determine Community Needs The next step is to send out a letter inviting community organizations to submit a request for research. A broad range of requests is normally submitted involving program evaluations and needs assessments. In August, before the term begins, requests are reviewed and a short list of projects is chosen based on our academic timelines and the appropriateness in terms of learning opportunities.
Project Decision Making In particular, we seek projects that enable students to engage in the full range of research activities, including completing a proposal, writing an ethics application, developing a literature review, constructing research instruments, gathering and analyzing the data, and presenting the research results. We consult with some organizations over the summer to help them design clearer research questions or more realistic methodological plans. In order to incorporate the values of structural social work into our decision making, we give preference to organizations with few resources to meet their research needs. Funding bodies require organizations to evaluate their work and demonstrate best practices. Without our help, many of these organizations that serve the most marginalized populations would not be able to secure funding.
Adopting Participatory and Social Justice–Based Projects We prefer projects that involve a participatory approach that allows service users to be part of an advisory committee, or ideally, to participate in every stage of research. This helps to equalize power and reduce the oppression of service users. We also encourage service users to provide input into the final report so that it is written in accessible language and incorporates their priorities. Lastly, we want projects to have a social justice focus, with the potential that the research recommendations will result in meaningful social change. One of our students described this process. The research approach for this project will be drawing on several theories including anti-oppressive research approach, queer, and feminist theory. Anti-oppressive principles suggest that research should be used toward broader social changes, involving the community that is being researched and their potential allies. By interviewing anti-violence service providers on their capacity, knowledge, comfort levels, and gaps in providing services to lgbttq (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, two-spirit, queer/questioning) persons experiencing intimate partner violence, we hope to incite and inspire change in including lgbttq persons in anti-violence discourse. (van de Sande & Schwartz, 2011, p. 42)
21. Preparing Students to Engage in Research in the Real World–•–149
Selecting Projects In September, once the term has begun, the students in the class are invited to select from the approved short list of projects. We usually receive between 25 and 40 requests and present the students with 15 to 20 options. The instructors present the projects that make it to the short list and ask the students to select their first, second, and third choices. The instructors then organize the students into research teams based on their preferences. Each of the two instructors teaches one section of the course with approximately 25 students per section. We form five or six groups of students per section. The research projects must be completed by the end of the winter semester, during the first week of April. Figure 21.1 shows the type of research in which the students engage, based on a survey of the past seven years of projects. We partner with numerous kinds of organizations that work with marginalized groups, for example, community health centers, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), ethnic family service centers, Planned Parenthood, and sexual assault centers.
Course Outline The course is structured with weekly three-hour seminars. Each week we provide a lecture for the first half. The topics we cover include community-based research, research methodology, data analysis, group dynamics with ideas about small group work, how to write a research proposal and final research report. We invite the coordinator of the University Research Ethics Board to talk to the students about research ethics and the ethics application process. The coordinator then is available to the students for advice about how to prepare their ethics applications.
Normally, during the second half of the lecture, the instructor meets with each small research group separately to supervise their project. We also use that time to visit the community organizations with the students at least twice in the school year as well as to attend the student’s presentation of their final report to the organization. The instructors review the report before it is released to the organization.
Research Project Another important aspect of this first meeting is to make explicit all the partners’ research agendas’ and negotiate a plan of action. Most research partners will have their own perspectives on the research project and have a strong interest in setting the research agenda. Service users may feel that they have the least power and research expertise of any member of the team. They need to be supported and empowered to understand the value of their lived experience and the contribution that this makes to the research process. It is during the initial meeting that the role of service users should be discussed. Even if the organization had not initially planned to involve service users, the research team should encourage the organization to look for ways to involve them. For instance, they could propose that the organization help form an advisory committee made up of service users, staff, and administrators. The role of this advisory committee would be to oversee the research process. Following the initial meeting, student researchers begin working on a detailed research proposal for the approval of the community organization and the instructors. Once the proposals have been completed, the students present them in class for feedback from the instructors and their fellow students. This allows the students a chance to incorporate this feedback into their proposals prior to presenting the proposals to the community organizations for feedback.
Needs Assessments Program Evaluation Exploring Best Practices Assessing Community Capacity
Needs Assessments
Program Evaluation
Best Practices
Research Questions What are the costs & impact of social enterprises? What are the structural barriers facing mentally ill offenders?
Figure 21.1 Types of Research
Assessing Community Capacity
Research Questions
150–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
The following is one student’s reflection on the feedback that he received: When presenting our ethics proposal to the class, I had the frustrating experience of presenting a methodology I felt reasonably confident with, and which seemed to me to be transparent, only to find that this view was not shared by others. Instead, we experienced much resistance to the quantitative nature of our research design. I admit, I was a bit defensive in my response to our critics. However, Smith suggests that “a helpful response to this is not to retreat to the ivory tower cursing the scientific illiteracy or innumeracy of social workers, but to recognize that change is difficult and can be threatening and always takes time” (Smith, 1987, p. 412). Our class discussion led into a more global discussion of research methodology in social work. Specifically, some members of the class displayed much disagreement regarding the application of positivist research paradigm within social work. This class debate was a nice reflection of the debate that continues within the field of social work. (van de Sande & Schwartz, 2011, pp. 19–20)
The research proposal must include three broad sections. This first involves an introduction, which should provide a brief description of the topic under investigation and a clear statement of the research question. It should include definitions of the terms as well as the theoretical framework of the study. The next section includes a literature review, which should provide a summary of the literature related to the topic under investigation and should conclude with a brief description of the gaps in knowledge. Lastly, the third section should cover the methodology and include the selection of participants, data collection, and the method of analysis. Students, in collaboration with the organizational representatives and service users on the advisory board are also expected to submit a detailed proposal for review by the University Research Ethics Board. Following a brief description of the study and the methodology, students must explain how participants are recruited and the process of obtaining informed consent. They must address issues of confidentiality and anonymity and include information letters and consent forms for participants. The research team must also explain how the data will be stored and safeguarded and how the results of the study will be used. At the initial meeting between the organizational representatives, the students, and the instructor, a contract is developed that spells out the details of the project, including specifying the research question, deciding on the research design, establishing the data gathering process, determining which tasks will be undertaken and by whom, as well as the timeline. Ownership of research products is discussed at this meeting but, at times, this can take additional negotiation. Ownership concerns possession of the raw data and the use of the final results. With respect to the raw data, if the organization hopes to conduct follow-up studies, it may want to hold on to the data. If this is the case, the students will have to be clear about this in their application to the
University Research Ethics Board. They must also inform the participants that the organization will have access to the raw data. In terms of the use of the final results, as instructors, we need to make it clear to the organization that we encourage the students to present their findings at professional conferences and to submit their study as a journal article with the students listed as first authors. In January, once the Research Ethics Board (REB) has approved the proposals, the teams start gathering and analyzing data. There is an additional meeting in January with the instructor, student team, and community organization to check into whether any aspects of the initial contract need to be renegotiated. At this time, the in-class lectures focus on qualitative and quantitative data analysis. If service users will be actively involved in the data analysis or are interested in learning more, they can also attend these lectures with the students. After much consultation with the REB it has become clear that many things are possible as long as they are transparent in the consent letter so that the participant is able to give truly informed consent. We have crafted a prototype consent letter that states explicitly that service users will be involved in all steps of the research including the analysis, but that the data will be made anonymous prior to the analysis. The teams then write the final report, which is presented in class for discussion and feedback. Often service users who have been involved in the project attend, and at times participate, in the class presentations. As a last step, the teams present their final report to the organization. The student teams collaborate with their community partners in accordance with the agreed upon level of contact negotiated in the initial contract. If need be, the teams may prepare a technical report for administrators and a second, more user-friendly report for service users.
Assessment: Reflexive Exercises We design the course so that the students become engaged in self-reflexive exercises. Each student individually completes two reflexive journals describing their assumptions and possible biases at different stages of the research process. Reflexivity, in this context, means that as social work researchers, we need to be aware of which research paradigm (positivism versus interpretism) frames our thinking. Positivism posits that only knowledge based on direct observation through the senses can be accepted as scientific fact. Some of its characteristics include objectivity, causality, deductive reasoning, quantitative methods, and generalizations. Interpretism proposes that reality depends to some degree on people’s definition of it (van de Sande & Schwartz, 2011). Some of its characteristics are subjectivity, description, inductive reasoning, and qualitative methods, which more closely align with structural social work. Jan Fook (1996) views reflexivity as a process (cognitive, emotional, experiential) of examining assumptions embedded in actions or experience, a linking of these
21. Preparing Students to Engage in Research in the Real World–•–151
assumptions with many different origins (personal, emotional, social, cultural, historical, political), and a review and reevaluation of these according to relevant criteria. A quote from a student’s reflexive journal illustrates Fook’s thoughts: A final point that I would like to address in this reflexive journal is on the topic of bias. I acknowledge the importance of revisiting my own biases throughout this research process. This fits into the post-positivist paradigm, which acknowledges that there is no such thing as an objective or value-free researcher. I identify as straight. I am researching a community to whom I do not consider myself a member. Perhaps more than the other members of my group, I need to be conscious and reflective of . . . Straight Mind . . . wherein all of history, culture, social reality, language and all subjective phenomena are interpreted and understood via a heterosexual lens. (van de Sande & Schwartz, 2011, p. 19)
We ask our students to write about whether their beliefs fit within the positivist paradigm or they are more comfortable with other methods of acquiring knowledge. Are their beliefs so enshrined in the positivist paradigm without being aware of it that they may not be open to what their participants may be requesting? Stuart and Whitmore (2006) previously taught this course and employed reflexive exercises. Their students reported that, as a result of these exercises, research was demystified and was seen as a practical skill that could be integrated into their social work practice.
methodology. Since this course demands a great deal of everyone’s time, management of other course and work demands can be a challenge. The last challenge is the ethics approval process and accomplishing it within the university academic time frame. University Research Ethics Boards (REBs) are slowly coming to understand participatory approaches to research, but they prefer to be able to review the research instruments, consent forms, and letters of introduction prior to approving the research in order to ensure that human subject’s rights are respected. In CBPR these instruments and letters are more fluid. The principal investigator (in our case the students under the supervision of the instructor) does not have ultimate control over the research because it is being carried out in partnership with the community. Advisory committees of service users, who were traditionally solely research subjects but now have more active roles in the research process, often give feedback about the research instruments as the research progresses and they become more comfortable with the process of research. This may cause changes to the research protocols after the application has gone to the REB. We have worked closely with our REB to help them understand the nature of our research and to feel more comfortable with fluid role definitions. Once we have approval of the project we are able to submit changes to the REB coordinator who ensures that the change fits the spirit of the REB’s decisions and can give expedited approval.
Challenges and Solutions
Implications and Outcomes for Students and Community
One of our biggest challenges is working with community organizations to help them see the benefit of involving service users in the research project at all levels. We strongly believe that this improves the research outcomes. As noted, we encourage organizations to include service users on an advisory committee. We acknowledge that this can be “complex” for everyone involved as service users may get caught up in having the opportunity to talk about everything that they have ever disliked about the services they have received from that organization or any other during their lifetime. This often makes organizational representatives uncomfortable. But once the students help the service users understand their role, the process usually proceeds more smoothly. For example, students may redirect complaints by service users with statements like, “That would be a great question to include in the interview guide.” This leads to the second challenge. The process described in the previous paragraph takes a great deal of time. It takes time for the research team of students, service users, and organizational representatives to build trust amongst each other. It takes time for the team to agree on what should be covered in the research and on the best
As part of our regular practice, at the end of the course, we survey our community partners about their experience of working with a group of students. Our community partners identified the benefits of working with students in CBPR as being able to (1) evaluate and reflect on our social work practice, (2) demonstrate our effectiveness, (3) get students’ input into how we can evaluate our practice, (4) and increase the profile of social workers as researchers. Feedback from the students over the years suggests that this course was an extremely useful educational experience. They reported that they were more likely to engage in research in the future and felt confident that they could carry out a research project from start to finish. Those students who chose not to do a master’s thesis as part of their degree felt that this research course will benefit them if they decide at a later date to pursue a PhD. Many of the students have presented their research projects at conferences and felt this helped their career. Students also appreciated the opportunity to connect with community organizations. The challenges identified by students included the high workload for the course and difficult partnership dynamics, including pressure from the community organization to find positive results (Schwartz, 2010).
152–•–III. USING AND APPLYING SERVICE-LEARNING
Conclusion In conclusion, we would like to emphasize that this course is not like a typical academic course. Most of the learning occurs outside the classroom, in the community. The classroom is used as a place for students to share their experiences and to get feedback and support from the instructors and other students. We try to create a supportive classroom environment while also being transparent about our expectations on the quality of work that is expected. This course is also more labor intensive for the instructors than a regular academic course. In addition to classroom time and preparation time, we make several
References and Further Readings Baines, D. (2011). Doing anti-oppressive practice: Social justice social work (2nd ed.). Halifax, NS, Canada: Fernwood Press. Flicker, S. (2008). Who benefits from community-based participatory research? A case study of the Positive Youth Project. Health Education & Behavior, 35(1), 70–86. Fook, J. (1996). The reflective researcher: Social worker’s theories of practice research. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Goss, K. A., Gastwirth, D. A., & Parkash, S. G. (2010). Research service-learning: Making the academy relevant again. Journal of Political Science Education, 6(2), 117–141. Hyde, C. A., & Meyer, M. (2004). A collaborative approach to service, learning, and scholarship: A community-based research course. Journal of Community Practice, 12(1/2), 71–88. King, C. (Ed.). (2006). Community service-learning in Canada: A scan of the field. Canadian Association for Community Service-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.community servicelearning.ca/en/documents/ScanofCSLinCanada.pdf Lopatto, D. (2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Peer Review, 12(2), 27–30. Lundy, C. (2011). Social work, social justice, & human rights: A structural approach to practice (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Middleman, R. R., & Goldberg, G. (1974). Social service delivery: A structural approach to social work practice. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd ed.) Toronto, ON, Canada: Oxford University Press. O’Shea, J. (2012). Community-based research and character development: An interview with Trisha Thorme. Journal of College & Character, 13(3), 1–6. doi:1515/jcc2012-1914
visits to all of the community organizations throughout the year. It also takes time to help students feel comfortable in working alongside service users. We are lucky that two of us teach a section of the same course at the same time. In this way, we make use of each other’s strengths on preparing and delivering lectures. Lastly, we do this because we love it. In spite of the challenges it is very rewarding knowing that our efforts benefit the community. For more information, the complete course outline can be found at http://www1.carleton.ca/socialwork/ccms /wp-content/ccms-files/SOWK-5405-T-and-U-RevisedOutline.pdf.
Peters, J. M., & Gray, A. (2007). Teaching and learning in a model-based action research course. Action Research, 5(3), 319–331. Ryser, L., Markey, S., & Halseth, G. (2013). Developing the next generation of community-based researchers: Tips for undergraduate students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(1), 11–27. Savan, B. (2004). Community–university partnerships: Linking research and action for sustainable community development. Community Development Journal, 39(4), 372–384. Schwartz, K. (2010). Community engaged research: Student and community perspectives. Partnerships: A Journal of Service Learning and Civic Engagement, 1(2), 1–16. Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Athens, GA: Northeastern University Press. Stanton, T. K. (2008). New times demand new scholarship: Opportunities and challenges for civic engagement at research universities. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 3(1), 19–42. Stoecker, R. (2005). Research methods for community change: A project-based approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Principles of best practice for community-based research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(3), 5–15. Stuart, C., & Whitmore, E. (2006). Using reflexivity in a research methods course: Bridging the gap between research and practice. In S. White, J. Fook, & F. Gardner (Eds.), Critical reflection in health and social care (chap.11). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. van de Sande, A., & Schwartz, K. (2011). Research for social justice: A community based perspective. Halifax, NS, Canada: Fernwood Press. Weigert, K. M. (1998). Academic service learning: Its meaning and relevance, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 3–10.
PART IV COMMUNITY ASSETS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND PARTNERSHIPS
22 FINDING THE RIGHT PARTNERS FOR SERVICE-LEARNING COURSES ISABEL BACA University of Texas at El Paso
A
s more and more higher education institutions make community engagement an integral component of their mission, service-learning has taken a more central role in helping academia reach this objective. Service-learning, a teaching and learning tool, allows students to practice what they are learning in a real workplace setting. Service-learning can be integrated across disciplines and can be given as much weight in course credit and grading as the instructor wishes. It can be required as a semesterlong project or it can be in lieu of another assignment or test. However, this teaching and learning tool can only be successful when all parties involved are working together, meeting the same goals, and recognizing each other as equal stakeholders in higher education. For service-learning to be an effective teaching and learning tool, students, faculty, administrators, and community agency partners must understand service-learning and be willing to see each other as equal partners in students’ learning and in meeting community needs. Finding the right community partner for courses across the disciplines is the key to successful service-learning experiences, high-quality education, and productive community and civic engagement. This chapter explains how university-community partnerships should be built and sustained for service-learning to work and benefit both higher education and the community. Examples used in this chapter can be applied across the curriculum.
Background Service-learning takes time, effort, and understanding, and students, faculty, and community members must hold positive attitudes toward service-learning. Thus, respect
and professionalism are crucial. To produce a successful service-learning experience, course, or program, all parties’ voices must be heard and valued: students, faculty, community members, nonprofit organizations, and administrators. Each partner must contribute and be willing to cooperate with each other for the well-being of their partner. Partnerships should be based on mutual goals and a mutual understanding of each other’s needs. For faculty and students, it is important that the community partner (the agency mentor) understands course objectives and how these could be met through the service the students provide to the agency and community. For the community partner, it is crucial for faculty and students to understand the agency’s mission and needs. Higher education and the community must work together, recognize each other’s strengths, and support each other. Randy Stoecker and Elizabeth Tryon (2009) explain the importance of “finding the best fit.” To find the right fit, Stoecker and Tryon argue that the nonprofit organization and the service-learning student must examine the specific characteristics they seek in a partner and the values they uphold or wish to uphold. For example, the skills the service-learning student possesses must match what the community agency is seeking. Students must be able to practice what they are learning in their course in the work they are performing for the agency and the community. Thus, as a service-learning partner, it is crucial to examine the match or mismatch between what the nonprofit organization wants or needs and what students provide, produce, or change. For instance, in a workplace writing course, students can serve a nonprofit organization by writing memos, letters, and even proposals, depending on the student’s skills and the agency’s writing needs and mission. 155
156–•–IV. COMMUNITY
In an accounting class, students can serve a nonprofit organization by providing free “check balancing” workshops or classes or even free tax returns to the people the agency serves, again depending on the time of the service-learning experience, the student’s skills, and the agency’s needs and mission.
Controversies and Potential Problems Though service-learning comes with many benefits and it has its many supporters and advocates, it too has its opponents and controversies. The following are potential problems and existing controversies as they relate to the service-learning triad—the partnership among faculty, students, and community partners. One major problem with service-learning is when this teaching and learning method is confused with pure volunteerism. Service-learning is based on, and must connect to, course objectives and academic curricula. At times, due to lack of knowledge or training, community partners may assign students tasks that have no connection to their courses. Students are treated as volunteers and are asked to do tasks such as cleaning pantries, answering phones, or helping at fund-raisers. To prevent this pitfall, agency mentors must receive a copy of the course syllabus and feel comfortable communicating with the course instructor as well (Baca & Muro, 2013). Muro, a community partner, urges agency mentors to be open to negotiating servicelearning projects and tasks with students. Both the student and the agency mentor must agree upon the project or tasks to be completed, and these projects and tasks must benefit both parties (Baca & Muro, 2013). Muro asserts the importance of the student and agency mentor working and negotiating together to identify deadlines for all projects and tasks. A major controversy with service-learning is that many relate this teaching and learning method with pure service and with the potential of creating the do-gooder effect, with academia coming down from the ivory tower to “save” those in need. To make service-learning equitable and dismiss the notion of “the server and the served” or the do-gooder effect, course instructors must show an interest in the nonprofit agencies they are working with and must familiarize themselves with these nonprofit agencies’ missions, objectives, and needs (Baca & Muro, 2013; Zimmer, 2007). Genuine reciprocity must take place. Students, faculty, and community partners serve and learn at the same time. All three give and take, making the communityuniversity partnership strong, equitable, and productive. All parties are contributing to higher education and the community. Another problem is when either students or community partners do not assume their responsibilities as servicelearning practitioners. Students may not be professional and may not commit to their assigned tasks or projects. They may not meet deadlines or not even complete the
service-learning experience. On the other hand, agency mentors, the community partners, may assign the student to another staff member who is not familiar with servicelearning. Community partners may not be willing or able to dedicate time to the service-learning student, time to communicate, supervise, train, or guide the student through the assigned projects and tasks. Service-learning may also require time for agency mentors to give feedback to students as they work through their assigned projects and tasks. Knowing each other’s expectations is fundamental at the very beginning of the service-learning experience. Cassandra Garcia, Sarah Nehrling, Amy Martin, and Kristy SeBlonka (2009) emphasize the importance of the nonprofit organization’s expectations in selecting servicelearners. What do these agencies expect in terms of professional etiquette and quality of work to be produced by students? It is crucial to consider not only both the course instructor’s expectations and the student’s expectations, but to recognize the community partner’s expectations of the service-learning student because the student’s skills, interests, educational background, and goals all play a role in how good of a fit that student will be with the agency. All parties’ expectations must be clearly communicated. Time presents another controversy in service-learning, and this could also be related to expectations. Community partners argue that a semester is just not enough time to have students learn and become familiar with their organization and be able to develop projects or complete specific tasks. Add to that, many service-learning courses only require a specific amount of time or number of hours for service-learning. Community partners, many times, feel that as quickly as students arrive to their organization, they quickly leave. Thus, considering the community partner’s perspective is crucial. Dadit Hidayat, Samuel Pratsch, and Randy Stoecker (2009) also examine what constitutes a successful servicelearning experience from the community’s perspective: commitment, communication, and compatibility. The academic and community partners must be committed to the service-learning experience in order to carry out successful projects and tasks. Effective and timely communication among the professor, the student, and the agency mentor must take place prior to, during, and at the end of the service-learning project and tasks. Compatibility between the organization’s mission and needs and the student’s skills, knowledge, cultural understanding, and course objectives are crucial. Melissa Gilbert, Mathew Johnson, and Julie Plaut (2009) argue that successful service-learning focuses on a deep sense of interdependence as the fundamental criterion for powerful partnerships. As key practices for accomplishing this, they list shared goals, trust, respect, clear communication, and joint decision making. In service-learning, mutually beneficial partnerships are characterized by shared planning and leadership, evaluation, accountability, clear roles, and consistent communication. Isabel Baca (2012) also provides a road map for service-learning practitioners
22. Finding the Right Partners for Service-Learning Courses–•–157
in the introduction to her edited collection, Service-learning and writing: Paving the way for literacy(ies) through community engagement. She lists essential components to successful service-learning: a clear link between course objectives to community service, reflection, progress reports, and evaluations and assessment. Clearly then, most scholars and research share the same concerns and list related, if not the same, key components to successful service-learning.
• The course instructor must monitor students’ servicelearning and progress. Progress could be monitored through written progress reports with guided questions or through oral progress reports in class. Asking students to keep a service-learning journal and occasionally checking these journals would also help the instructor monitor progress, address concerns, and resolve problems or challenges.
Students
Recommendations and Suggested Practices So how do professors identify the “right” nonprofit organization, the right community partner for their course and their students’ service-learning experience? And once they have begun such partnership, how do they sustain it? To accomplish this, not only do professors have responsibilities to fulfill, but so do the students and the community partners.
Faculty The following are suggested practices to help faculty secure effective community partnerships for service-learning: • Faculty must recruit, meet, and if need be, train, agency partners to become agency mentors. Asking community organizations to complete an agency profile form would provide faculty with essential information that would allow them to determine if a particular agency is the best fit for their course. See Appendix A for a copy of a suggested agency profile form and see Appendix B for a sample agency profile as provided by the organization. Faculty must be willing to also make site visits or have face-to-face meetings with community partners. • Faculty must create a community partners directory of agency mentors, those wishing to participate in servicelearning and those that have already participated. The agency profiles would help create such directory. • If possible, and if the resources are provided, faculty should create their own service-learning and community engagement website that serves as a resource for students, agencies, administrators, the community, and other faculty. • At the beginning of the semester, faculty and their students should organize a welcoming reception or getting-toknow-each-other reception where nonprofit agency mentors and partners come in to talk about their organizations, their needs and missions, and possible projects and tasks for students wishing to do service-learning at their site. Interaction among community partners, students, and faculty early in the semester allows for students to feel more confident and comfortable in approaching community partners and wanting to work with their agencies. This is a great opportunity to address all expectations of each other and of the service-learning experience.
Suggested practices for students are as follows: • Students must provide the course syllabus to the agency mentor. Students must treat service-learning as a job. They must demonstrate professionalism and commitment to the service-learning experience and projects. Students must meet both the course requirements and the agency’s requirements. By creating a service-learning agreement, students commit to doing all this, and they ask agency mentors to make the same commitment. See Appendix C for copy of a service-learning agreement in a writing course. • Students must create a service-learning contract to outline the specific project or tasks they will be completing for their service-learning. This contract can include deadlines, state how often and how they will communicate with the agency mentor, and list specific deadlines. To develop this contract, students must negotiate their work with both the agency mentor and their instructor, since all three must approve and sign the contract. See Appendix D for sample contracts used in writing courses.
Community Partners (Agency Mentors) Suggested practices for community partners are as follows: • Community partners must provide clear descriptions of the varying needs of their organization and the clients and populations they serve. They must also specify their agency’s mission, objectives, and the expectations and requirements they have of the service-learner. This can be done through an agency profile form (Appendixes A and B) and by attending workshops, receptions, meetings, and any type of orientation provided by faculty and their students. If a website is available for service-learning courses, and if organizations are allowed to post their descriptions and agency’s mission and needs, community partners should take advantage of this venue. • Community partners should attend workshops, meetings, or receptions given by the service-learning faculty and students to help them become acquainted with courses, teachers’ expectations, and students’ backgrounds. These events can also assist community partners by allowing them to promote their agencies and persuade students to select their organizations as their service-learning sites.
158–•–IV. COMMUNITY
Faculty, Students, and Community Partners
Conclusion and Future Directions
For all partners in service-learning, some common suggested practices include the following:
Ultimately, it is all about the professor-student-agency mentor triad—how they communicate, when they communicate, what their expectations are, and how they communicate these to each other. Just like community partners should take the time to know the course objectives and assess students’ skills and knowledge, so should faculty learn about the nonprofit organization, its mission, and its objectives and needs and be willing to participate with the agency. Together, faculty and community partners should seek venues to improve the quality of higher education and meet community needs. These venues can include working together and collaborating in publications, conferences, workshops, training, and fund-raisers. It is imperative that educators and members of academia feel obligated to serve the community as well. As true partners and equal partners, professors, students, administrators, and agency mentors are all interrelated and interdependent. They are not, as Hidayat, Pratsch, and Stoecker (2009) argue, “self-contained in academic and community vacuums” (p. 160). Higher education members and community partners, as service-learning practitioners, should see their work and partnerships as building bridges across their individual identities and zones. Together they should share the same vision. Together they should seek venues and opportunities, develop networks and programs, and make connections that can lead to transformation in higher education and the community—transformation for the common good.
• Students, faculty, and agency mentors must reflect on the service-learning experience, at least once at the end of the semester or once the service-learning experience comes to an end. Holding a reflection session where community partners are invited, allows all parties’ voices to be heard. Students, however, should be provided with more reflection opportunities and venues throughout the service-learning experience. Reflection allows students to connect their service to their learning and allows them to examine themselves to determine if any change or transformation occurred because of their service-learning experience. Journals and progress reports allow students to reflect. Reflection allows all parties—students, faculty, and agency mentors—to address concerns, accomplishments, and challenges in the service-learning experience. • At the end of the semester, students should be asked to give a presentation on their service-learning experience and work, and agency mentors should be invited to attend and participate. • At the end of the semester or at the end of the servicelearning experience, both students and agency mentors must evaluate each other and the service-learning experience. These evaluations should be submitted to the course instructor. See Appendixes E and F for sample evaluation forms, one for the student, and the other for the agency mentor.
References and Further Readings Baca, I. (Ed.). (2012). Service-learning and writing: Paving the way for literacy(ies) through community engagement. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Baca, I., & Muro, J. A. (2013). The hook-up: College writers and nonprofits building relationships. In S. Garza (Ed.), Adding to the conversation on service-learning in composition: Taking a closer look (pp. 41–65). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press. Bacon, N. (2002). Differences in faculty and community partners’ theories of learning. Michigan Journal on Community Service Learning, 9(1), 34–44. Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. E. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning research? Michigan Journal on Community Service Learning, 7(1), 28–34. Garcia, C., Nehrling, S., Marin, A., & SeBlonka, K. (2009). Finding the best fit: How organizations select service learners. In R. Stoecker & E. A. Tryon (with A. Hilgendor) (Eds.), The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning (pp. 38–56). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Gilbert, M. K., Johnson, M., & Plaut, J. (2009). Cultivating interdependent partnerships for community change and civic education. In. J. R. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning: New solutions for sustaining and improving practice (pp. 33–51). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hidayat, D., Pratsch, S., & Stoecker, R. (2009). Principles for success in service learning—The three Cs. In R. Stoecker & E. A. Tryon (with A. Hilgendor) (Eds.), The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning (pp. 147–161). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Kelshaw, T., Lazarus, F., Minier, J., & Associates (Eds.). (2009). Partnerships for service-learning: Impacts on communities and students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. A. (with A. Hilgendor) (Eds.). (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Zimmer, S. (2007). The art of knowing your place: White service learning leaders and urban community organizations. Reflections, 6(1), 7–26.
22. Finding the Right Partners for Service-Learning Courses–•–159
Appendix A Agency Profile Form Agency Mentor Profile Name of Organization: Agency Mentor’s Name: Agency Mentor’s Title: Telephone Number: Email Address: Address: Mailing Address (if different from above): I would like to meet with you to discuss the community writing partnership further: YES
NO
Please provide a description of your agency and your agency’s communication needs: Please describe any requirements for the service-learning student or instructor:
Appendix B Sample Agency Profile Sample 1. Center Against Family Violence Please add my agency as a service-learning site for this semester (Spring XXXX). The following sections describe possible project(s)/tasks for the service-learning. Provide the agency’s and agency mentor’s contact information, and list any requirements, conditions, and/or qualifications needed to complete the community literacy service-learning. I understand students will use this information to select their service-learning site. Contact Information • • • •
Agency: CAFV – Center Against Family Violence Agency Address/: Agency Mentor Information (Name/email Address)/Telephone number: Agency Mentor’s Email Address :
Agency Description: The mission of CAFV - Center Against Family Violence is to confront and prevent domestic violence in all its forms by advocating for safety and justice through intervention, education, and community collaboration. CAFV has remained unique in that it provides the only 24-hour crisis hotline in the three county region that addresses domestic violence issues and provides crisis counseling and intervention to over 6,000 people per year. The hotline is located in the Shelter for Survivors of Domestic Violence. The Shelter for Survivors of Domestic Violence, as previously described, is a housing refuge that has the capacity to serve 103 people. Project/Task Description (Be specific as possible): • • • • •
Grant Writing (English Only) Web page design/Copy writing (English and Spanish) Presentations on domestic/Dating violence (English and Spanish) Quarterly newsletter (English Only) Update CAFV internal content (Brochures, support groups, etc.)
Qualifications/Required (or preferred) Skills: • Working knowledge of Microsoft Office (PowerPoint, Word, & Excel) • Good verbal communication skills • Ability to work independently as well as part of a team
160–•–IV. COMMUNITY
Requirements/Conditions (ex., Background check, immunizations, orientation, specific work schedule, etc.) • Background check • Volunteer/Internship training held on Saturday, January 30th and February 6th • Work schedule TBD with mentor and approved by UTEP Staff
Appendix C Service-Learning Agreement Service-Learning Agreement English 3355
Workplace Writing
The following is an agreement between the community agency and the University of Texas at El Paso student enrolled in English 3355 with Dr. Isabel Baca. Please be sure to read and sign the document as confirmation of your acceptance of this agreement. Service-learning is a teaching and learning methodology that allows students to practice in a real workplace setting what they are learning in the classroom. For English 3355, they are asked to complete a minimum twenty hours of service with a community agency/organization where they will serve as workplace communicators, with an emphasis on writing assignments. Upon signing this agreement, the student agrees to 1. Meet with the agency mentor, provide a copy of the course syllabus, and make sure that this agreement is signed by all involved parties; 2. Negotiate how the twenty hours of service will be provided: assignments, meetings with the agency mentor, presentations, etc.; 3. Provide a written and signed description of the tasks to be performed to the course instructor and agency mentor; 4. Meet all the required deadlines for both the agency and the course; 5. Communicate with both the agency mentor and the instructor when unclear on what the assignment is or when concerns arise with the service-learning experience; 6. Notify both the agency mentor and the instructor if student is unable to complete the service-learning project; 7. Complete all required agency and course assignments/tasks; 8. Complete an agency and self-evaluation at the end of the service-learning experience; keep a time-sheet of hours served, and give a final presentation to the class; and 9. Conduct himself/herself in a professional manner. In turn, the agency mentor agrees to 1. Supervise the student’s service-learning assignments/project, making sure that all tasks relate to workplace writing and communication; 2. Provide the necessary orientation, training, or guidance for the student; 3. Communicate clearly to the student what is expected of him/her. This includes establishing deadlines; 4. Communicate with the instructor when concerns or questions arise; 5. Complete an evaluation of the student’s service at the end of the semester; and 6. Treat student professionally. Student’s Name (print)_______________________________________________ Student’s Signature_________________________________ Date______________ Agency Name________________________________________________________ Agency Mentor’s Name (print)___________________________________________ Agency Mentor’s Signature____________________________ Date______________
22. Finding the Right Partners for Service-Learning Courses–•–161
Appendix D Sample Contracts Sample Contract I This contract must be signed by the student and the agency mentor, then reviewed and approved by the instructor. All three parties must sign a copy. Organization: Address:
Telephone Number:
Agency Mentor:
Email: Phone Number:
Student:
Email: Phone Number:
Instructor:
Email: Phone Number:
Course Number and Title: Project: The student and mentor will work on a promotion flyer and a guidebook (of approximately 20 pages) to train new catechists for the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) program. The current head of the program, Mr. XXX, is retiring this year. The need to provide guidance and instructions for the new catechists will help create a more orderly transition for the new RCIA program director and incoming initiates. The student and mentor will also write a proposition paper on a succession plan to be given to the parish pastor, Father YYY. Accountability: The student and mentor will meet every Sunday, starting March 3rd, after RCIA classes for approximately two hours, and the service-learning project will end on April 21, 2013. The mentor will be there to oversee the writing of each document and will concurrently review each written document at the end of each session (every Sunday). The agency mentor will provide a final evaluation of the student’s work at the completion of the internship. The student will continue to work with the organization after the completion of the internship to oversee implementation of project. Agency Mentor’s Name and Signature: __________________________ Date: ____________ Student’s Name and Signature: ________________________________ Date: ____________ Professor’s Name and Signature: _______________________________ Date: _____________
Sample Contract II Service-Learning Contract This contract must be signed by the student and the agency mentor, then reviewed and approved by the instructor. All three parties must have a copy. Organization: Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Agency Mentor:
Email:
Telephone Number:
Student:
Email:
Telephone Number:
Instructor:
Email:
Telephone Number:
Course:
English 5318 - Community Literacy Internship
Semester:
Spring 2013
162–•–IV. COMMUNITY
The project will consist of creating quick reference procedural manuals for the organization’s departments as specified below with the purpose of facilitating the work processes within and between departments. Specific duties will include • Interviewing the directors of the following departments in order to identify the departments’ work procedures. • Collecting materials that the departments use in their work procedures. • Writing follow-up, confirmation, and thank you letters to departments. • Composing quick reference procedural manuals for the aforementioned departments that will include objectives, job descriptions, an outline of the required or suggested work procedures, and documents used in the workflow. • Creating digital versions of the manuals, including links for easy access to appropriate documents. Other considerations • Student and mentor will meet once a week in person, via email or by phone, to discuss progress. • Mentor will provide feedback to student within five (5) days of draft submission. • A final evaluation will be completed by the mentor at the completion of the internship. • Student’s work will begin on Monday, February 18, 2013, and must be completed by April 19, 2013. Student: Signature: ________________________________ Date: _____________ Agency Mentor: Signature: ___________________________ Date: ___________________ Instructor: Signature: ________________________________
Date: ___________________
Appendix E Agency Mentor Evaluation Form Thank you for participating and working as an agency mentor for the course English 3355, Workplace Writing, at the University of Texas at El Paso, Department of English. Please complete the following evaluation so that the course may be improved, and student writers can better assist your agency in future semesters. Your input is very important, and your honesty and cooperation are appreciated. Be sure to complete both sides of the form. Please return this evaluation form to Dr. Isabel Baca by May 2, 2013. You may mail it in to the following address or you may have the student writer turn it in in a sealed envelope with your signature across the seal. You may also email it to [email protected]. Thank You. Mailing Address:
UTEP— Department of English Dr. Isabel Baca 500 W. University Ave. El Paso, TX 79968
Student Name_________________________________
Date_________________
Agency Name_________________________________
Phone________________
Your Name____________________________________
Email_______________
1. The student completed all the assigned tasks as specified in the contract. 2. The student met all deadlines.
Yes
No
Yes
No
22. Finding the Right Partners for Service-Learning Courses–•–163
3. The quality of the student writer’s work is Excellent
Above Average
Good
Fair
Poor
4. What were the strengths of this student writer in his/her work for your agency?
5. What were the weaknesses of this student writer in his/her work for your agency?
6. How would you recommend this course/work experience be improved?
7. What are/were your concerns, if any, about working with a student writer? Have these concerns been resolved? If not, how can they be?
8. What requirements and/or conditions, if any, do you have for placement of student writers in your agency?
9. How would you describe your communication and working relationship with the student?
10. Are you willing to work with other student writers?
Yes
No
11. Would you like to meet with me to discuss service-learning projects/possibilities/concerns? Yes
No
12. Do you have any additional comments or feedback?
Your signature________________________________________
Thank you!
Appendix F Student Evaluation of Agency Mentor and Organization EVALUATION OF AGENCY, AGENCY MENTOR, AND PRACTICUM English 3355 – Workplace Writing As the semester comes to an end as does your service-learning, please evaluate your agency and agency mentor. Your honest answers and feedback will help improve the course as well as the senior writing practicum experience. Your responses will not be shared with the agency. Submit this evaluation in your portfolio. Your Name_____________________________________
Semester________________
Agency Name______________________________________________________ Agency Mentor’s Name(s)_________________________________________________
164–•–IV. COMMUNITY
1. How satisfied are you with your agency selection? A. Very satisfied
B. Satisfied
C. Somewhat
D. Unsatisfied
E. Very unsatisfied
2. How would you describe your service-learning experience with this agency? A. Excellent
B. Good
C. Fine
D. Poor
3. How would you describe the communication between your agency mentor and you? A. Excellent
B. Good
C. Fine
D. Poor
4. How would you describe your relationship with your agency mentor? A. Excellent
B. Good
C. Fine
D. Poor
E. No relationship
5. How useful/beneficial (to the agency) are the writing tasks/projects you completed? A. Extremely useful
B. Very useful
C. Useful
D. Not useful
E. Not sure
6. How useful/beneficial (to the community) are the writing tasks/projects you completed? A. Extremely useful
B. Very useful
C. Useful
D. Not useful
E. Not sure
7. How helpful/beneficial was this service-learning experience to you? A. Extremely useful
B. Very useful
C. Useful
D. Not useful
E. Not sure
8. How would you rate your overall English 3355 Workplace Writing service-learning experience? A. Excellent
B. Good
C. Fine
9. Will you continue working at this agency?
D. Poor Yes
No
Not sure
Please answer the following questions completely and specifically. Your input is important. 1. What did you like best about working with this agency? 2. What did you like least about working with this agency? 3. What did you like best about your service-learning experience? 4. What did you like least about your service-learning experience? 5. What have you learned from your service-learning experience? 6. How would you recommend this course and service-learning experience be improved? 7. What recommendations do you have for your agency and/or agency mentor? 8. What recommendations do you have for your English 3355 instructor? 9. What advice would you give to an incoming English 3355 student? 10. Please write any additional comments you may have:
23 ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND PURPOSEFUL PROJECTS AND GOALS CRYSTAL S. ASCHENBRENER University of Wisconsin–Stout
T
hroughout my professional career, as a social worker and faculty member, I have worked in numerous settings in which I collaborate with college students and their college campuses. While employed as an executive director of a Habitat for Humanity affiliate in a rural state, I valued our partnerships with the various departments, organizations, and students at the statesupported university located in our backyard. Initially, these partnerships involved working with students via sororities and fraternities or service clubs and organizations, such as the Human Services Club or the Psychology Club, to meet their philanthropic goals or volunteer requirements. In addition, there were a few courses that required volunteer hours. This volunteering proved beneficial for the students, yet their assignments were typically unstructured and lacked academic focus. During my tenure at this Habitat for Humanity affiliate, I was asked to serve on the university’s newly formed Service-Learning Advisory Board as its only community partner. Additionally, I was asked by some student leaders to help them form a Habitat for Humanity Campus Chapter. Thus, the informal partnership became a much more structured, functional, and mutually beneficial arrangement for both Habitat and its families and the university and its students. Currently, I am employed as a faculty member and teach a service-learning course at a mid-size university and serve on a national applied learning conference committee. Both have given me new insight into service-learning and its impact on nonprofit organizations. As a faculty member, I have witnessed many best practices, as well as some less effective approaches toward service-learning and developing relationships with nonprofit organizations,
which will be reflected in this chapter. Overall, from my perspective and research, service-learning is growing stronger, more creditable, and more purposeful, and will continue to grow as it continues to provide its value for colleges and their students, faculty, universities, and also for nonprofit organizations and their clients and communities. This chapter will focus on nonprofit organizations’ perspectives of service-learning.
Benefits of Service-Learning for Nonprofit Organizations Purposeful Projects Service-learning is purposeful, goal oriented, and structured (Campus Compact, 2003), and from my experiences, it is beneficial for students and nonprofit organizations. When a service-learning project is focused on a set of purposeful goals rather than a set number of hours, it can create many more beneficial opportunities for both the nonprofit organization and the student. For example, when a college student is working with a local nonprofit organization on an upcoming fund-raiser, the student makes a commitment to the goals of the fund-raiser, rather than to an amount of time at the organization. This approach removes the limitations and problems that time can create. The nonprofit organization and the student work together to achieve the organization’s fund-raising goals, with benefits for both partners. For the nonprofit organization, the fund-raiser helps raise money and public awareness to benefit the mission and target population, while for the 165
166–•–IV. COMMUNITY
student, the experience helps apply course material on macro practices while advancing critical thinking skills and leadership skills.
Free Labor The most elementary benefit is that service-learning students provide free labor, just like volunteers. When utilized correctly, this free labor can serve as a great benefit for a nonprofit organization (Birdsall, 2005; Lowe & Medina, 2010). For example, a group of 12 college students, who are enrolled in a Native American Service Learning Partnership course, visit a tribal school and help host a youth-driven, lock-in-style event in order to provide a rewarding, meaningful activity for at-risk youth. These college students provide leadership for the lock-in activities and reduce the need for paid staff. School staff supervises for safety purposes, but the college students are able to provide positive, meaningful interactions and serve as role models for the middle school students. Because service-learning is educationally based, the college students are drawing from their academic knowledge when providing the service, making their commitment of time intentional, beneficial, and often valued differently than volunteerism. Thus, free labor is one of many incentives for nonprofit organizations to engage in service-learning partnerships.
Long-Term Volunteer Base and/or Possible Recruitment of Future Employees Nonprofit organizations, particularly those that get the bulk of their labor from volunteers, are always in need of finding and keeping volunteers. Service-learning can serve as the catalyst to develop a one-time volunteer opportunity into a long-term ally. If a nonprofit organization can partner with a university faculty member, semester after semester, on a particular project or goal, this relationship can be mutually beneficial. For example, consider an afterschool program that secures three to eight service-learning students from a sociology service-learning course each semester. These students apply approaches acquired from the academic courses to conduct activities that require larger amounts of supervision and may also serve as oneon-one mentors for students who struggle socially or academically. Without these students applying academic concepts in the areas of sociology, psychology, and child development with their critical thinking and leadership skills, the after-school program would need to hire more staff, which would mean having to increase their billable rates for parents and guardians or decrease the number of children the after-school program could serve. The organization also procures another benefit from this service-learning partnership: The students may apply to become employees. Once the students complete their service-learning course, some of them, inspired by the
experience, choose to seek employment with the afterschool program, saving the program time and money in recruiting employees. Additionally, the program administrator can feel more confident in the hiring decisions, having already observed the students for the past four months (an academic semester) interacting with children and staff. The college students know the work environment and clientele already, which can decrease future staff frustration and turnover. Thus, long-term partnerships can be another benefit of the service-learning partnerships for nonprofit organizations.
Civically Engaging Citizens Reflecting on my experiences, I can say that servicelearning positively influences a college student both today and in the future. These civically engaging experiences coincide with the research that service-learning can create and empower more civically engaged citizens and community members, which is a core element of servicelearning (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Gray, Ondaatje, & Zakaras, 1999; Lowe & Medina, 2010; Moely, McFarland, Miron, Mercer, & Ilustre, 2002). This engagement can also be a benefit for nonprofit organizations. During my time at Habitat for Humanity, when college students had positive opportunities there, they were more likely to continue to volunteer after their course requirements were met. Moreover, I was hopeful that such an experience would motivate them to volunteer for Habitat or other nonprofit organizations following the completion of their project and graduation from college. When the service-learning college students were volunteering at my affiliate, I would purposefully engage them in such discussions. A successful example would be a student who volunteered in the Habitat office for a general education course requirement and once she satisfied her course requirement, she stayed and continued to volunteer in the Habitat office until she graduated. Another example, the local high school requires students in their honors program to provide a service in the community. One student completed her service in the Habitat office and then continued to volunteer after her requirement was met. Additionally, this student recruited her mother, a local real estate agent, to search for affordable lots for Habitat’s Site Committee, producing further benefits for this Habitat affiliate.
Public Awareness When service-learning students have a positive experience, they are more likely to tell their classmates and friends (Astin et al., 2000). Word-of-mouth advertising and awareness can be a very meaningful benefit for nonprofit organizations. As a faculty member, I have knowledge of a program that visits long-term care facilities. This program grew from one psychology course’s project of one van of students to multiple vans, with each van visiting a different long-term care faculty in the area. This growth can be
23. Establishing Community Partnerships and Purposeful Projects and Goals–•–167
attributed to the spread of the mission and the value of the project via word of mouth among college students. This program has successfully served more clients at the local long-term care facilities because participating college students have shared their positive experiences with other college students, who in turn joined the program. Many people in our society tend to have a negative view of longterm care facilities and such a program can be beneficial in reducing this mindset. For example, student leaders of this visitation program have presented their program to a student organization that I advise. During this presentation, they spoke about the value of the project to their clients and asked their fellow students to join them to satisfy their service-learning requirements or as volunteers who want to make a difference. As a result of this presentation, some of the college students may enroll in this project and others may just absorb and appreciate the value of the impact on the clients. This public awareness benefit constitutes a positive marketing tool for the related nonprofit organizations.
Knowledge and Experts With service-learning, college students are expected to apply their current and prior course knowledge to the assigned project. This knowledge can be very beneficial to a nonprofit organization. For example, a group of students in a graduate-level course focused their service-learning project on building a long-term strategic plan for the Habitat affiliate where I was employed. The Habitat affiliate staff and the board of directors did not have experience with such knowledge and this long-term strategic plan was very helpful and beneficial in both the immediate and longer term. Additionally, when students are working on servicelearning projects, their faculty members serve as a resource. Faculty are often viewed as experts on the particular subjects related to the service-learning project. For example, a group of students in a Spanish course offered to partner with Habitat for their assignment. They were asked to convert the local affiliate’s informational handout from English to Spanish. The students were successful at applying their course knowledge and converting a majority of the information, but they had to seek their professor’s help when it came to the financial eligibility portion, as this information was too complex for them to translate effectively. This Habitat affiliate gained a beneficial handout that has helped it to reach more families and because of the partnership with this faculty member, it also has a beneficial resource to help update materials in the future.
More Than the Project Service-learning can have many benefits for nonprofit organizations; they can help serve a client’s immediate needs or help fulfill a “wish list” item that might not otherwise be addressed. By bringing in college students, organizations can make a positive difference, sometimes
not directly related to the assigned project. For example, a service-learning youth mentorship project that benefited the youth in the program also benefited the staff. The staff were very appreciative of the extra help and support, and they valued the positive energy the college students brought to their after-school program. Additionally, with the tribal school project, the Native American leaders value not only the service-learning project but also the opportunity to teach the college students about Native Americans and their culture. Thus, nonprofit organizations can derive numerous benefits not directly related to the servicelearning project and original goals.
Possible Obstacles to Consider Academic Schedules College courses begin and end at set times during an academic year. Service-learning projects should be conscious of the academic calendar. Some service-learning projects might be seasonal, such as annual fund-raising events. Some service-learning assignments will need to be completed at the beginning of a semester while others are meant to cover the entire semester or academic year based on the course’s needs. Faculty members should be aware of the project’s time frame prior to making contact with nonprofit organizations as to foster a successful servicelearning experience and partnership.
Background Check Policies and Training Requirements Some nonprofit organizations have strict background check policies and training requirements that limit their ability to partner with short-term service-learning students. For example, many domestic violence organizations have very strict background check regulations, training requirements, and confidentiality policies that make it very difficult, though not impossible, to partner with service-learning students. Domestic violence shelters might be able to partner with students on specific projects, such as updating or creating marketing material, organizing or leading an upcoming fund-raiser, research, or applying for related grants, or creating or gathering care packages for incoming families, all of which are vital to the mission, though they do not involve direct interaction with program participants. Just as service-learning empowers critical thinking and creativity in students, a high level of critical thinking and creativity is often needed when initially developing such service-learning projects and partnerships.
Unfun Learning In my experience, service-learning empowers and inspires students as they make a difference for their assigned community partner. It helps them become more
168–•–IV. COMMUNITY
confident in themselves and their learning as they apply and reflect on their prior and gained learning. It also instills the desire to participate in more applied learning or community engagement after their service-learning experience. Yet, these strong, positive attributes do not have to come from intensive, life-changing projects. With many or most projects, various parts of the project are viewed as undesirable or “unfun,” yet also necessary. For example, a group of students from a course with a landscaping design component who work with Habitat families to create a plan for a long-lasting, low-maintenance, and affordable lawn might find it time-consuming and not meaningful to search for bushes that are low-maintenance and affordable while still having nice curb appeal. In these times, it is important that students reflect on the value of such activities and their positive, needed impact on the nonprofit organizations and its families. For the Habitat families who had a college student go through the extra effort to make lawn care affordable and low maintenance, it made all the difference. For the student, the less fun aspects of learning are necessary, too, and it is important for students to reflect and find meaning of such applied learning activities as this is part of the servicelearning experience and often part of the professional world as well.
Building the Partnership With a Nonprofit Organization By considering the benefits and obstacles, servicelearning can be much more successful and meaningful for all involved: college students, faculty, universities, clients, nonprofit organizations, and communities. There are many ways to build the partnership with a nonprofit organization.
Faculty-Initiated Partnerships From my experience from both the nonprofit organization side and the faculty side, it is ideal when the faculty member and nonprofit organization make the initial contact required for arranging service-learning projects. When the students make the first contact, there can be confusion and the relationship can quickly become overwhelming and frustrating for both the student and the nonprofit organization. For example, a colleague taught a course that required 40 students to complete a servicelearning project during the semester. Ten of these students independently contacted the local food pantry. This food pantry struggled to maintain contact with the 10 students and coordinate their schedules, leading the organization to the conclusion that this partnership and future partnerships are more time-consuming and problematic than beneficial. Additionally, this type of scheduling with 10 students can take time, which can leave the students feeling unvalued or
frustrated that the placement will not work out for them. When faculty make the first contact, this communication can prepare the nonprofit organization for upcoming service-learning opportunities. Direct contact between the organization and faculty member can open a discussion and lead to a clear plan of action, which could prove to be more beneficial for both the nonprofit organization and the college students. If we, as faculty, can create a positive, organized, purposeful environment for the students and the nonprofit organizations from the start, more meaningful activity is likely to occur for both. Additionally, service-learning projects can be frustrating when students make the first call. Many nonprofit organizations struggle to address their many daily crises and may struggle to return a phone call to a student who they know will need more of their time. While attending applied learning conferences, I often hear how faculty and their students become frustrated with nonprofit organizations’ lack of responsiveness to the students’ calls, which can lead to a very negative impression of these nonprofit organizations. This frustration may even expand into frustration with all nonprofit organizations. Similarly, if a nonprofit organization has a negative experience with a student or group of students, this experience may lead to a negative impression of all college students. In keeping with the spirit of service-learning, it is therefore important that, as faculty and universities, we create successful partnerships in order to avoid these negative impressions on both sides. If a faculty member determines the college students need to make the initial contact, then they should respectfully instruct the students to only contact one nonprofit organization at a time and also teach them how to effectively communicate with the organizations their course assignment expectations. I have heard faculty express that they instruct their students to call multiple nonprofit organizations so they can secure a service-learning placement quickly. This method is concerning for several reasons. For example, with the previously mentioned class of 40 students, students may make 20, 30, or more calls to the local food pantry when instructed to use this approach. Thus, again, to give the college students the best impression of our nonprofit organizations and community needs, it is important that the faculty member make the first contact with the service-learning placement and avoid overwhelming organizations. Furthermore, this level of communication would give the nonprofit organizations and communities the best impression of college students and their strengths.
Time and Skills We owe it to students, nonprofit organizations, and everyone involved to successfully train and prepare to teach service-learning. First, faculty members need to be well trained on the philosophy of service-learning.
23. Establishing Community Partnerships and Purposeful Projects and Goals–•–169
They should understand and celebrate such concepts as partnership, goals, and reflection. They should understand and teach their students how to apply current and prior course knowledge in the field using best practices and know how to use such gained field experience in their current and future courses and life. Faculty should also embrace the development and formation of partnerships with community organizations. For faculty, there are many informative conferences to attend, such as the Conference of Applied Learning in Higher Education (CALHE) and National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE); several educational websites to explore, such as Campus Compact, National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, and Corporation for National and Community Service; and various professional journals to reference, such as the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Further, many campuses have their own available resources, such as service-learning offices or applied learning centers. Service-learning partnerships are a valuable experience for both nonprofit organizations and college students, yet service-learning projects require an initial investment of time and skills.
Orientation of Nonprofit Organization Ideally, students should be knowledgeable about their community partnerships’ mission statements, goals, and social problems that organizations are addressing. For smaller projects, a brief student orientation can be held. This type of learning can be done in a training fashion in which the community partner presents to a class and shares the related information about their nonprofit organization and the project’s goals and tasks. I have used this approach when directing college students to complete their service-learning project at a local after-school program. Such programs had already been discussed in previous courses and the students only needed to learn about this particular after-school program and its related service-learning project. From my experiences, bringing in a nonprofit organization’s representative gives the students an opportunity to meet their contact person, which can reduce their anxiety and increase motivation. Additionally, this allows the nonprofit organization’s representative to meet the students assigned to their organization, which can decrease anxiety and increase motivation for the representative as well. For my service-learning project with a tribal school, I spend significantly more time preparing the college students for the project. This time is spent educating students on the Native American culture, including strengths, struggles, and current practices. Additionally, I spend time teaching about the various components of the servicelearning project, which is an educationally based mentorship program. This type of education can take six to eight class sessions to successfully prepare the students. During this same time, I am also preparing the tribal school for the
college students. I coordinate the various components to ensure success for both the tribal school and the students. Additionally, I educate the tribal school on college students, particularly this group of students. With successful orientation, the implementation and outcomes of the project continue to advance as well.
Number of Students Determining the appropriate number of college students to involve is another key part of the partnership with a nonprofit organization. The nonprofit organization has to have a major influence on this part of the course. If the class size is too large, students could be left with nothing to do or could spend too much of their time unsupervised. This can lead to students feeling unappreciated or unproductive, which would negatively influence their learning and leave them feeling uninspired or unfulfilled at the end of the service-learning experience. A larger number of students can mean the capability to complete more projects, tasks, or goals, but for some nonprofit organizations, these “extra” projects can mean more money, which may not be available. Again, the ideal number of college students should be discussed before starting the project in order to create a mutually beneficial relationship. For faculty, it might be difficult to determine how to accept students into a service-learning course. As college students continue to learn the value of service-learning, faculty members need to determine how to serve or enroll students accordingly. Some faculty members have utilized an application process, which has many benefits. First, the students need to demonstrate their knowledge and skills, as they need to apply for a seat in the class. This also serves to inspire initiative, which can lead to personal growth for students. Second, such a process has the power to add creditability to the project. Third, it can provide a level of fairness among the students as they all would have equal opportunity to apply. Fourth, having more applicants than seats can be an influential tool to open more sections or create more projects. There are, however, some disadvantages. Some students may not apply or may feel intimidated by the process, yet would really benefit from such an opportunity and also benefit the project. Further, this process would also mean an additional time commitment for the faculty member developing the application process, evaluating applications, and selecting the students. My tribal school service-learning project has such a large number of students interested that I have formed an Application Selection Committee. This committee is made up of former students who participated in the service-learning project and have a strong interest in being part of the project moving forward. This committee approves the marketing material, recruits college students by speaking to several classes about the course and
170–•–IV. COMMUNITY
project, and hosts information sessions on the course and project. Then they review, rank, and select the next group of service-learning students. This approach has been a win-win for all involved. The students on this committee grow personally, educationally, and professionally as they gain confidence, advance their leadership skills, and further influence this project. The nonprofit organization also benefits from this dedication, as their assigned students will be more prepared and inspired for their service-learning project.
Conclusion
References and Further Readings
Gray, M. J., Ondaatje, E. H., & Zakaras, L. (1999). Combining services and learning in higher education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Lowe, L. A., & Medina, V. L. (2010). Service learning collaborations: A formula for reciprocity. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 91(2), 127–134. doi: 1606/1044-3894.3970 Moely, B. E., McFarland, M., Miron, D., Mercer, S., & Ilustre, V. (2002). Changes in college students’ attitudes and intentions for civic involvement as a function of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(2), 18–26.
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute. Birdsall, J. T. (2005). Community voice: Community partners reflect on service learning. Journal for Civic Commitment, 5, 1–13. Retrieved from http://ccncce.org/articles/community -voice-community-partners-reflect-on-service-learning/ Campus Compact. (2003). Introduction to service-learning toolkit: Reading and resources for faculty (2nd ed.). Providence, RI: Author.
I have practiced service-learning from both the field and academic perspectives. Having experience from both sides has helped me to advance my understanding of servicelearning and empowered me to develop more meaningful partnerships for both college students and nonprofit organizations. When implemented successfully, service-learning can be beneficial for all: college students, faculty, universities, nonprofit organizations, and their clientele.
24 P–16 SERVICE-LEARNING PARTNERSHIPS A Model for Success
JULIE DIERBERGER University of Nebraska at Omaha
S
chools often struggle with the ability to support service-learning as a method of instruction in personnel, time, professional development, and project resources. However, teachers are required to engage students in their learning, provide relevance, and develop civic and critical thinking skills. This is a typical quandary for service-learning and community engagement: Financial support for engaging teachers in the pedagogy is minimal, and in a pinch, one of the first things on the chopping block, despite articulated benefits. This struggle is consistent across all levels of education. If a faculty member in a college is creating a syllabus using service-learning but identifies barriers in resources, time, and a lack of institutional support in promotion and tenure, the faculty member is likely not going to utilize service-learning as a method of instruction. As a result, teachers, school districts, colleges and universities, and faculty members are at a critical decision point: Given the benefits of servicelearning, how do we proceed? In times of need, to address the civic health of communities, community leadership often turns to education institutions. Through partnerships in education, resources can be extended to meet the ever-increasing pressure on instruction to meet state standards and learning goals. The opportunity to reach prekindergarten through high school (P–12) and higher education institutions provides a forum for extending these resources while engaging students in their coursework and communities. This chapter examines service-learning across the P–16 continuum and how service-learning in P–12 classrooms impacts
service-learning in higher education. It connects servicelearning partnership and community impact and examines a model of educational collaboration in service-learning: across P–12 and higher education.
Background, History, and Literature Review In Omaha, Nebraska, community leaders identified major community issues affecting youths and the future of the community: high truancy rates, disengaged youths, and high dropout rates. At the same time, the University of Nebraska at Omaha’s Service Learning Academy, established in 1999, saw exponential growth in academic service-learning since its inception and had begun partnering with local P–12 schools on a few service-learning experiences. The success of these collaborations led the community leaders to identify P–16 (prekindergarten through higher education) service-learning as a solution to these issues. As a result, two education systems partnered in service-learning, each bringing assets to address these local problems. Their collaborative efforts to teach and learn through service-learning, to engage students in their communities, and to lead by making strategic decisions in education through collaboration provided a solid foundation for the future of service-learning in Omaha and beyond. Service-learning has taken on many forms in education, influencing research, teaching, and communities around the world across the P–16 education spectrum. The first 171
172–•–IV. COMMUNITY
definition of service-learning was created by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) in 1969 and spanned both P–12 and higher education (Stanton, Giles, & Cruz, 1999). Throughout the next few decades, interest and support for service-learning continued as educators formalized themselves in organizations such as the National Youth Leadership Council (NYLC) in 1983 and Campus Compact in 1985 (Titlebaum, Williamson, Daprano, Baer, & Brahler, 2004). These organizations represent the organization of both K–12 (NYLC) and higher education (Campus Compact) in service-learning. In 1993, the National and Community Service Trust Act passed and established the AmeriCorps program and the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). CNCS became a major funder of school and community engagement through servicelearning spanning preschool through higher education. In 2011, during the financial crisis and near shutdown of the U.S. government, the closure of Learn and Serve America as a part of CNCS was negotiated. Learn and Serve America active grants were stopped. This decrease in federal funding has had an impact on support for service-learning in the states. The Education Commission of the States analyzed the results of closing Learn and Serve America on service-learning, which included: loss of positions supporting service-learning, lack of professional development for teachers, and a decrease in schools exploring service-learning (Ryan, 2012). Despite the decreased formal federal funding, teachers are being asked to engage students in the curriculum and build skills that will prepare them for both college and careers. Service-learning is an excellent way to engage students while meeting content standards. Providing instructors appropriate time and resources to support this type of engaged teaching is difficult with limited professional development and time. However, when P–12 schools offer service-learning as a method of instruction, and students connect to this type of teaching and learning, higher education institutions see students coming to their campuses who expect flexible, engaging, and communitybased instruction. P–12 students are developing social responsibility skills, are engaged in their learning, and are bringing these attributes to college (Scales, Blyth, Berkas, & Kielsmeier, 2000). These students are making choices in higher education institutions based on their increased exposure and interest in engaged, democratic teaching and learning. Student persistence is essential, and when their personal values and goals are aligned with an institution that offers engaged teaching and learning opportunities such as service-learning, retention increases (Hunter & Moody, 2009). Institutions of higher education are responding to the call for service-learning programs on their campuses to meet students where they are in engaged teaching and learning. This focus is often reflected in the mission and values of a campus institution, which students seek when looking for their higher education “home.” Service-learning is, as Barbara Jacoby reminds us, “all about partnerships” (2003, p. 315). The P–16 spectrum
allows for students to not only engage in meaningful learning while impacting their communities, but also gives the opportunity for shaping collaboration between two educational silos: P–12 education and higher education. Through P–16 service-learning collaboration, educational organizations have the opportunity to create a more seamless learning opportunity for students, bridge the achievement gap, and impact communities. Further, Saltmarsh and Hartley (2011) call for the transformation of education with a focus on democratic engagement, which encourages people to think about education in a democratic context as opposed to the place-based formula more traditionally employed. In this model, unidirectional knowledge is created in partnership with communities for the public. Democratic engagement employs an asset-based focus on engaging communities with shared knowledge creation for community change. This shift in thinking about how students interact with communities, the outcomes of their knowledge creation, and the democratic ideals that truly change communities, provide an excellent foundation to incorporate P–16 service-learning as a tool to achieve these goals.
Current Issues and Controversies Providing a quality education for all students is essential. Omaha, Nebraska, is specifically interested in identifying gaps in achievement for youth and identified some areas for improvement. Schools with high levels of poverty and achievement gaps were identified as partners as a result of a community study and neighborhood forums in 2005. Building Bright Futures, a nonprofit organization created by local philanthropists concerned about the community and trajectory of youth in poverty, in collaboration with SRI International (formerly known as Stanford Research Institute), completed Master Plan which identified the landscape of barriers for youth in poverty to prepare for college or careers in the two-county area (2007). As a result of these efforts, information about these youth helped to shape recommendations to be implemented to close the achievement gap. Of 10,000 live births in the two-county area, 3,500 are born into poverty, which was identified as an annual income of at or under $19,350 for a family of four in 2005 (SRI International, 2007). Based on the dropout data, 1,900 of the 9,687 students in Omaha who were ninth graders in 2005–2006 would drop out of school before graduation (SRI International, 2007). Students disengaged in their coursework and learning was reflected in attendance and low grades. An average of 6,582 public school students was absent each day in 2005; 4,561 students dropped out of the public schools between the years 2003 and 2006. Training teachers across the P–16 spectrum about servicelearning as a pedagogy to impact students that are low-income and disengaged was one of a myriad of interventions identified by Building Bright Futures in partnership with local school districts. Other programs included: early childhood education, access to health services, mentoring, attendance
24. P–16 Service-Learning Partnerships–•–173
supports, and a reengagement center (SRI International, 2007). Of the programs supporting Building Bright Futures’ mission, service-learning is the only curriculum-based intervention aimed at reducing the achievement gap. Research identifies service-learning as a method of impacting the achievement gap; a study indicated low-income students that served did better academically than low-income students that did not serve (Scales et al., 2006).
context of K–12 audiences, these translate easily to concepts applicable to higher education faculty through the eight standards. In addition, having a similar context to create collaborative service-learning experiences is essential to understanding the pedagogy. The learning outcomes for the service-learning seminar are 1. Participants increase awareness of the Omaha community, their assets, needs, personnel, and practice. 2. Participants understand the benefits of service-learning and its connections to other key frameworks, such as 40 Developmental Assets, 21st Century Skills, High Impact Practices, and standards-based curriculum.
Practices and Methods The P-16 Initiative in the Service Learning Academy at the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) aims at connecting the P–12 and UNO curriculum through the development of collaborative academic service-learning experiences. P–16 service-learning relies on strong partnerships from stakeholders in the community that include: public school system administration, community nonprofit partners, and higher education administration. These partnerships allow for P–12 teachers and UNO faculty members to receive training through week-long service-learning seminars held each year. These seminars are the entry point into faculty interest in participation, and are a rare instance in which P–12 and higher education teachers learn together in the same setting, share and learn about students, and build collaborative partnerships. The seminar is rooted in the National Youth Leadership Council’s K–12 Quality Service-Learning Standards (2008). While created in the
Sidebar 24.1
3. Participants demonstrate understanding of the K–12 Service-Learning Standards for Quality Practice, published by NYLC. 4. UNO, P–12, after-school program faculty, and community agencies build collaborative relationships that begin service-learning project planning. 5. Participants are prepared to create quality servicelearning experiences.
To achieve these, a sample service-learning seminar schedule is provided (see Sidebar 24.1). Prior to the seminar • Participants receive basic service-learning information as prereading • Send out bios of participants, courses and grades taught, and their service-learning interests
Sample Schedule and Daily Goals
Day 1: Goals: • Understand service-learning as a method of teaching • Initiate partnerships with seminar participants and Service Learning Academy staff • Experience a service experience from the perspective of both a student and a teacher Time
Activity
Location
9:15 AM
Welcome
UNO
• • • •
UNO
9:30–10:15 AM
Sign up for service sites Introduction to the day Go over schedules and staff Warm up with a community building activity
10:15–10:30 AM Preassessment 10:30–11:45 AM
12:00–12:30 PM 1:00–3:30 PM
UNO
• Quality P–16 service-learning project example: UNO faculty perspective UNO • Quality service-learning process overview, standards, and dimensions • Goals for seminar Lunch • Service • Reflection: What? So what? Now what?
UNO Identified nonprofit partner sites (Continued)
174–•–IV. COMMUNITY
Sidebar 24.1
Continued
Day 2: Goals: • Understand connections to curriculum through service • Make an initial contact with five nonprofit agencies and have one follow up conversation with a potential partner • Begin project planning Time
Activity
Location
9:00–10:00 AM
• Warm up activity • Unpacking Day 1 reflection • Quality service-learning standards: Meaningful Service and Link to Curriculum
UNO
9:00–10:00 AM (Nonprofit partners)
• Set up tables • Welcome • Service-learning overview
UNO
10:00–10:15 AM (all) Community Compass: A resource and community mapping tool of Omaha
UNO
10:15–10:45 AM (all) Quality P–16 service-learning project example: Community partner perspective
UNO
10:45 AM–12:15 PM
UNO
Nonprofit fair
12:15–1:00 PM
• Lunch • Quality service-learning standards: Partnerships • Partnerships activity: Yes…and
UNO
1:15–2:30 PM
• • • •
Community partner session debriefing Transactional vs. transformational partnerships Quality service-learning standards: Link to Curriculum Activity: Meaningful service connections to your curriculum area/standards
UNO
2:30–3:30 PM
• Resources available to support P–16 service learning teams • Reflection
UNO
Day 3: Goals: • Identify preparation, planning, and service for projects, including timelines • Explore community partners and connection to service with curriculum • Identify potential project issues and solutions Time 9:00–10:15 AM
Activity • • • •
Warm up activity Quality service-learning standards review Quality service-learning standards: Duration and Intensity Service-learning stages and activity
Location UNO
10:30–11:30 AM
Quality service-learning standards: Student Voice
UNO
11:30 AM–1:30 PM
Lunch and Service
Adams Park Senior Center
1:30–2:30 PM
Quality service-learning standards: Diversity
UNO
2:45–3:30 PM
• Project planning • Reflection
UNO
24. P–16 Service-Learning Partnerships–•–175
Sidebar 24.1
Continued
Day 4: Goals: • Connect reflection ideas to project plans • Incorporate rubrics as a method of assessing student learning • Understand UNO Service Learning Academy evaluation strategies for P–16 service-learning courses Time 9:00–10:45 AM
11:00–11:30 AM
Activity
Location
• Warm up activity • Quality service-learning standards: Reflection • Reflection activity Quality P–16 service-learning project example: Student perspective
UNO
UNO
11:30 AM–12:00 PM
• Quality P–16 service-learning project example: P–12 teacher perspective • Top 10 things to think about when planning a P–16 service-learning project
UNO
12:00 PM–1:00 PM
• Lunch • Campus tour
UNO
1:00–3:00 PM
• Quality service-learning standards: Progress Monitoring • Activity: Applying progress monitoring to reflections
UNO
3:00–3:30 PM
Reflection
UNO
Day 5: Goals: • Complete project budget estimations and return • Create a plan for communicating with Service Learning Academy and project partners • Leave with questions answered and plans ready to implement Time
Activity
Location
9:00–9:30 AM
• Warm up activity • Quality service-learning standards overview
UNO
9:30 AM–12:00 PM
• • • • •
UNO
Final project outline with partner Timelines for communication Budget estimations Community partner site visits as needed Post-assessment
Through structured warm-up activities at the seminar, P–16 “teams” are created that include one of each of the following components: P–12 teacher and course, UNO faculty member and course, and nonprofit partner and identified assets and needs. Guided by the course learning outcomes and community-identified assets and needs, the teams form to create a collaborative service-learning project. It is important to acknowledge traditional relationships between P–12 and higher education service-learning: that of a service provider (higher education) and service recipient (P–12 students and classrooms). In the case of this P–16 model, the course learning outcomes are met in both projects in which a nonprofit agency is served by both P–12
and higher education partner in collaboration. All three partners are seen as teachers and learners in this model. P–16 teams can take a variety of formats. In some cases, these teams are created based on subject area interests, which are identified on registration materials. For example, an 11th-grade English teacher might develop a service-learning project with a Multicultural Literature for Children course instructor at UNO. Together, their students will read multicultural books, blog about their readings through guided questions, respond to posts, and create backpack study guide modules for book groups to check out from the public library. These study guide modules are a compilation of the work students have done throughout
176–•–IV. COMMUNITY
the semester, pulling together music connected to the books’ settings and historical context, identifying art pieces that evoke book themes, and writing questions or poems to promote dialogue. In other cases, P–16 teams are interdisciplinary, combining an English class from an alternative high school with a UNO Psychology Learning Laboratory. These students serve and learn together in teams by clicker training dogs at the local Humane Society. Students present their work together at the end of the semester. High school students share reflection through structured PowerPoint presentations, and UNO students present formalized graphs that chart the training and progress of their applied operant conditioning techniques and assessment. The P–16 Initiative’s personnel structure supports P–16 teams working to develop collaborative service-learning experiences. On post seminar assessment, participants universally identify feeling supported in their project development and implementation. This result highlights the value of the staff available to support service-learning goals. A P–16 coordinator serves to design Service Learning Seminar and professional development curriculum, recruit Service Learning Seminar participants, manage program budget, problem solve, communicate impacts with funders and the community, and present program results. The coordinator supervises two full-time associates. First, the service-learning associate supervises the graduate assistants and problem solves issues as they come up, attends project meetings, and assists with the Service Learning Seminar. The program evaluation and assessment associate creates assessment schedules for the program, administers pre- and post-assessments to all UNO and P–12 courses, and compiles and shares data in reports as needed. The evaluation and assessment associate supports faculty research as it relates to engagement and promotion and tenure, and works with Institutional Review Boards and local public school district research offices to ensure proper assessment protocols are maintained. Finally, as a result of participating in the Service Learning Seminar, P–16 teams are assigned a graduate assistant housed in the Service Learning Academy at UNO to support the logistical parts of the project: arranging bus transportation, gathering project materials, setting up project meetings, and keeping data. The graduate assistants serve as the primary contact for up to six P–16 teams and serve to support high-quality service-learning instruction. P–16 teams continuously communicate the importance of these students in the successful implementation of collaborative service-learning projects.
learned together through structured service-learning experiences over three years. During the 2012–13 academic year, 72 service-learning projects were implemented connecting 2,556 P–12 students and 1,097 UNO students. They generated 37,900 hours of service in the community and worked together an average of five times per project in collaboration with 40 nonprofit community agencies. Bringing P–12 students to campus has been an important aspect of the P–16 service-learning design. When dreaming about their futures, students have to be able to “see” their options. For most schools engaged in P–16 servicelearning in Omaha, 75% of the families attending the schools were at or below the poverty level. Many of the students attending these schools had never been on a college campus and are first generation college students. Because the goal of the program is to close the achievement gap by providing engaging curriculum to connect learning to real life, students coming to campus proved essential. Students work in laboratories collaboratively and during the service-learning experiences hear from college teammates about college life, what types of classes to take, majors, and their career paths. What is most difficult to measure is the impact of the relationship between the P–12 student and UNO student. P–12 teachers share that students did not show negative classroom behaviors and were instead focused on the content. Similarly, feedback from UNO faculty members portrays an engaged student, eager to work in collaboration with a P–12 student, learning more deeply about themselves, and committing to support the student long after the project is complete. For example, one servicelearning project with a UNO Native American studies course and Native Indigenous Centered Education students in a local high school focuses on mentoring through service-learning. Some of the UNO students have participated in the program for three years, and in an absence of credit, come to project meetings and service sites to continue the relationship established. Five of the seven graduating Native American high school students are coming to UNO. UNO made an intentional choice by selecting inservice teachers to participate in Service Learning Seminars; these teachers will supervise incoming teachers, become administrators, and impact students every year by engaging them in service-learning. Preservice teachers interested in utilizing service-learning need the support of supervising teachers and administrators. The goal is to train inservice teachers so they can support new teachers and impact building climate for engaged teaching and learning.
Implications
Assessment
The impact of P–16 service-learning collaborations tells the story of engagement, collaboration, and learning. To date in Omaha, over 9,000 students have served and
Data is collected at the beginning of the semester and end of the semester asking students about their learning, intention to participate in future service, and efficacy. In two
24. P–16 Service-Learning Partnerships–•–177
years of P–16 service-learning, UNO students showed the greatest increase in the percentage agreeing with the following statements between the pre-assessment and postassessment: • I understand which organizations are working to address the community’s needs. (+14% agreement) • I know how to influence the decisions that are made in my community. (+11% agreement) • I know how to become more involved in my community. (+9% agreement) • I feel like an important part of my community. (+9% agreement)
Involvement in service-learning also revealed increases in personal communication skills: • Leading a group project (+10% self-rating) • Speaking in front of groups of people (+9% self-rating)
UNO students expressed an increased support of the service-learning experience: • I think that students should be required to perform service projects in the community in order to graduate. (+10% agreement)
Middle and high school students showed an increase in having “at least one teacher or other adult who listens to me when I have something to say” (+21%), while also reporting improvement in their ability to “speak in front of groups of people” (+18%). These highest levels of agreement showed strong development in communication skills and connection to individuals involved in the project. Further assessments regarding the role of that “adult” in the experience are underway. Elementary school students reported a decrease in their ability to “connect . . . what I learn in school to real life” (-31%), but an increase in their “plan to always volunteer to help” (+29%). These students see a strong connection to service but are not making the link to their academics. As a result of these findings, changes in the seminar have been made, especially for elementary teachers and their partners.
References and Further Readings Hunter, M. S., & B. L. Moody. (2009). Civic engagement in the first college year. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jacoby, B. (2003). Fundamentals of service-learning partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 1–19). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them and why they matter.
Graduate assistants are asked to identify, based on the standards, the challenges and areas in which the projects are doing well. P–16 teams consistently succeed at linking meaningful service to the curriculum while the most frequent struggles are partnerships and duration and intensity. The struggles most often relate to lack of communication in partnership development and not enough collaborative meetings to achieve depth of partnerships and learning outcomes. Results of this informal assessment help to shape professional development provided during the Service Learning Seminars and subsequent Seminar Alumni events. Future research linking the service-learning standards across the P–16 continuum is needed.
Conclusions, Future Directions, and Suggestions for Future Research P–16 service-learning has connected P–12 teachers, higher education faculty members, and nonprofit partners in unique ways. Roles between these audiences in the Omaha community continue to develop; that growth has brought a plethora of opportunities for engaged learning. As the program continues, institutionalized support from the school districts in support of service-learning is the next step. With over 5,000 public school teachers in the Omaha metropolitan area, the opportunities to “train the trainer” in quality service-learning pedagogy is a necessary option. The opportunity to expand the seminar to other higher education institutions in the metropolitan area is also a potential next step. As the University of Nebraska at Omaha builds a 50,000-square foot Community Engagement Center on its campus, the building provides a practical space for continued dialogue and collaboration around engagement and using community assets to address needs. There is no doubt P–16 service-learning is one effective way to transform Omaha’s community. As this initiative takes shape, the future is bright in terms of identifying ways to assess the impact on the community, including addressing the aforementioned goals of engaging students in their coursework, bridging the achievement gap, attending school, and connecting to the community.
Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities. National Youth Leadership Council. (2008). K–12 service-learning standards for quality practice. St. Paul, MN: Author. Ryan, M. (2012). Service-learning after Learn and Serve America: How five states are moving forward. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2011). Democratic engagement. In J. Saltmarsh & M. Hartley (Eds.), To serve a larger purpose: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education (pp. 14–26). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
178–•–IV. COMMUNITY Scales, P. C., Blyth, D. A., Berkas, T. H., & Kielsmeier, J. C. (2000). The effects of service-learning on middle school students’ social responsibility and academic success. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(3), 332–358. Scales, P. C., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Neal, M., Kielsmeier, J. C., & Benson, P. L. (2006). Reducing academic achievement gaps: The role of community service and service-learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(1).
SRI International. (2007). Investing in Omaha’s children & youth: Master plan. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Stanton, T. K., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Servicelearning: A movement’s pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Titlebaum, P., Williamson, G., Daprano, C., Baer, J., & Brahler, J. (2004). Annotated history of service learning. Retrieved from http://www.fsu.edu/~flserve/resources/resource%20 files/annotated%20history.pdf
25 NEIGHBORHOOD ART HIVES Engaging Communities in Teaching and Learning JANIS TIMM-BOTTOS
ROSEMARY C. REILLY
Concordia University, Montréal
Concordia University, Montréal
Students continue to have a strong presence in the studio despite the community studio course being finished. They clearly enjoy spending time in the studio with friends and family. On Friday there was a mix of students and regulars from the neighborhood. One student art therapist donated a large box of broken ceramic pieces to create mosaics and shared these with other participants in the studio. I was eager to try these methods and worked alongside one of our seniors with disabilities, who made her very first mosaic with pride and enthusiasm . . . A new participant enjoyed privacy in the garden creating an incredible clay vessel. It was the final day for our student volunteer, who worked on completing various projects that were initiated during the summer. S. and I gave her our mosaics as a thank you gift for all of her hard work at improving the studio space. Only one of the neighborhood boys stopped by and re-invented a pair of sunglasses he found in the space. A mother worked alongside her young child painting rocks . . . another mother and son continued working on a wall mural downstairs to improve our kitchen space. A small group of young adults who have stopped by a few times to make art met at the hive once more. Sarah*, La Ruche facilitator
*
L
a Ruche d’Art, a community art studio and science shop located in a working-class neighborhood in Montreal, is open three days a week. The space operates as both a third place for the community and a third space storefront classroom, utilizing arts-based practices in the university course Community Art Studio: Methods and Materials (CATS 631/ARTE 398). This chapter documents how this unique space serves as a compelling site for community engaged service-learning (CESL). La Ruche attempts to respond to criticisms that service-learning can reinforce the power and status of academics and professionals, disempowering local residents. La Ruche works at equalizing participation between community members and the academy in order to co-create and share knowledge. Voices of students collected during a research project are woven into this description to underscore these dynamics.
The Community Art Studio/Storefront Classroom: An Interstitial Space La Ruche d’Art, affectionately known as the art hive, functions as a transitional hybridized space. It is simultaneously a community art studio, gallery, garden, university classroom, and a place for richly layered community conversations. First and foremost, this free and open space operates as an arts-based public homeplace
Unless otherwise indicated, all names of participants are their actual names.
179
180–•–IV. COMMUNITY
(Timm-Bottos, 2005) for people living in the neighborhood. Public homeplaces are protected spaces, which informally invite individuals to engage with each other in hopes of nurturing each other’s leadership potential, especially youth and those considered the most vulnerable and the most marginalized in their communities (Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock, 1997). They are spaces where active witnessing of and engagement with multiple perspectives contribute to building community where expression, understanding, and vision unfold (Watkins & Shulman, 2008). La Ruche serves as a weekly gathering spot for isolated seniors, young families, and youths in order to make art and discuss what matters to them. These discussions culminate periodically in nonjuried community art exhibits. As a storefront classroom, it is also a welcoming place for university students to bring life learning to their coursework as well as joining with others to co-create community projects. This type of storefront learning calls for experiential methods and challenges teachers to think outside the academic status quo. While didactic teaching plays a small role in this alternative setting, many opportunities are available to students to share authority, power, and responsibility of course content demonstrating how knowledge is socially constructed, that is, produced, negotiated, transformed, and realized in the interaction between the teacher, the learner, and the knowledge itself (Kenway & Modra, 1992, as cited in Irwin, 1997). Teaching strategies informed by women’s ways of knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986) are employed. Respecting students and their own subjective knowledge acquired through life experience provide the grounding for respecting their ability to learn in ways that educators may not have envisioned and is, in and of itself, a robust tool for cultivating student empowerment (Irwin, 1997). A key component supporting students in broadening these socially constructed participative processes into their everyday practices as professionals is to engage in a series of community engaged service-learning experiences. It begins by situating their initial experiences directly in a neighborhood community setting. This setting creates a potent context for translating understanding into action, positioning individuals as active creators and potential transformers of their material and cultural world (Irwin, 1997). Students become comfortable with using art materials and sharing what they know since the classroom is also working art studio. Given that they travel off campus to the studio (taking the metro, walking, biking, or driving), students become familiar with the physical community before they commence their CESL experience. Kate noted that having the storefront classroom embedded in St. Henri was central to her learning. I have taken so many classes in stagnant classrooms . . . and even if [La Ruche] was maintained in the same format and put [in a university building], I think that the energy would be very different . . . Even walking from the metro, down
through a community and interacting with people on the street . . . the whole experience of even coming to class was very different.
She observed that walking through the neighborhood provided a transitional space for her to be more receptive, open, calm, and comfortable in her work at the studio. It helped her to create a community-focused frame of mind. The art hive provides a welcoming, inclusive space in order to promote a cooperative learning environment where cognitive, affective, and skill integration can take place. According to Rita L. Irwin (1997), “Cooperative learning experiences . . . provide occasions for compassion, understanding, negotiation, learning to listen and hear the views of others, and giving voice to one’s own views” (p. 250). This interstitial space serves many purposes and promotes experimental methods and approaches.
Underlying Conceptual Foundations I’m at home, but I’m in public. I’m less afraid than I was before. What is discarded is made new. What is broken can be fixed. I don’t have to do it alone. (Farida [pseudonym])
Third-space theory, coined by Homi Bhabha (1994), refers to a created space within a space where individuals have the opportunity to take ownership of their learning by engaging in crucial discussions and participate in “cultural” practices. It is a space where transgressive acts can be played out, where people can let their real selves flourish, and where “different identities . . . remake boundaries within the conception that there is no ‘One’ or the ‘Other’ but an ‘In-between,’ a place where both past and future can work together to create a new outlook” (p. 219). This transitional space allows students to reshape their professional identity of working in community as artists, therapists, or teachers based on the cultural practices inherent in the community art studio. Learning within a third space, students understand and internalize their identities through an arts-based process of self-awareness, interaction, and reflection. This process may entail redefining their identity in accordance with their present and future vocational visions. Third places (Oldenburg, 1989) are spaces—neither home nor work—where people can engage in informal associations through conversation, learn about each other in a safe environment, and create relationships with diverse others. In the case of La Ruche, studio relationships are created through art-making and gardening, which act as a stimulus for citizen inquiry (i.e., gathering, reflecting, dialoguing, and disseminating community input through artsbased methods). Like most third places, community studios develop a personality that mirrors the community. This then allows university students to meet in a middle ground, between the public and private sphere, experiencing an authentic and unique CESL experience.
25. Neighborhood Art Hives–•–181
The Example: CATS 631/ARTE 398 Community Art Studio: Methods and Materials This experiential course, cross-listed between the Department of Creative Arts Therapies and the Department of Art Education, is for artists, teachers, therapists, and others interested in learning nonclinical aspects of creative arts therapies as developed within free and welcoming public settings. The course is taught in an active community studio in order to demonstrate literally how to set up small and sustainable spaces for community building and to demonstrate the principles of studio practice. Students learn, through CESL and art-making, the theory, methods, and materials used to create public art homeplaces, which serve as a practical way to take art as a form of mutual healing into neighborhoods. Students develop an understanding of community art studio methodology through experiential methods, especially engaged CESL, culminating in public presentation. Each student is expected to contribute personal knowledge and experience and integrate experiences with the course theory and related literature.
A Three-Phase Process Approach to CESL Students in the course CATS 631/ARTE 398 undergo a three-phase transitional process into their CESL experience. The first phase is being in class in the third space, the storefront classroom. Class is conducted in the studio on a day when the art hive is not open to the public. This allows students to become familiar with the community and the art materials. But this familiarity goes beyond the physical. The instructor and the teaching assistant embody the practice of being within a public homeplace. Students are greeted just as community members are greeted when they enter the art hive. Faculty and students make and share healthy snacks to promote bonding and cohesion. This approach allows students to experience the socioemotional benefits of being in a public homeplace. Art-making and dialogue are instructional essentials; students integrate the conceptual elements of the class with their own somatic experience of those concepts. Students are encouraged to voice their questions, reflections, insights, and experiences as they relate to or diverge from the concepts covered in class, thereby deconstructing hierarchy, status, and authority in the typical university classroom. The second phase in the students’ transition to their CESL experience is to spend a portion of their time at the hive when the studio is open to the public. Former students, who have experience working with the public homeplace methodology, staff the studio during these hours. These role models play an orienting and supportive role to the community members working in the studio, the students engaged in CESL, as well as attending to their own art-making projects. Hailey noticed
some boys who seemed to . . . need direction, as they weren’t doing a lot of art-making. I wanted to go and get them some materials, but I watched how S. casually suggested art-making ideas and then let it go, and I modeled myself after him.
In this way, CESL students (1) become aware of new ways of being with others in the community space, (2) learn how to step back rather than control activities within the studio, and (3) observe and experience how to create safe spaces for emergent processes coming from community members. It is also not unusual for the instructor or teaching assistant to be in the studio as individuals outside of their academic roles, with their families, making art, conversing with people, or working in the garden or science shop. These hours of CESL in the art hive give the students an additional opportunity to observe, embody, and integrate the principles of the community art studio and public homeplace. Students witness and live relationships that are empowering, approaches that support the emergence of knowledge from community members, and the healing and community-building powers of art. When reflecting on his reactions to a community member during his first CESL experience at La Ruche, Lindsey confronted some uncomfortable truths about himself when reflecting on his reactions to a community member in the studio. It brought up many questions for me about the navigations within a shared space like this and inclusivity . . . I recognize this to be a surfacing of my own prejudice. I thought that my experience is probably a shared one, and identified a similar reaction with others . . . However, I was at the same time heartened by the interactions between this woman and other participants.
The third phase is to venture out to other community art studios. This phase extends the students’ frames of reference regarding the distinctive and varied personalities of communities and their art hives. These occasions help to build student responsiveness to the uniqueness of communities, avoid stereotyping, and craft additional opportunities for students to put theory into practice, while at the same time expand, revise, and possibly abandon set notions, prepared plans, and prescribed roles. It also prepares students to consider creating their own art hives, since they are also asked to develop their own real or imagined community projects. One student at St-Sulpice assembled a donated floor loom and engaged an early adolescent boy in its construction. I proceed to take pictures of the loom to document the process of putting it together . . . I have been forgetting to take pictures until now, and this is the third week . . . I dismantle a part of the loom which is easy to remove but that is big enough that it will make a difference between the pictures. I then ask J. if he can help me put the piece back in place. He readily accepts and puts his attention to the task.
During phases two and three, students are required to write field notes at the end of each CESL session. These
182–•–IV. COMMUNITY
field notes focus on three kinds of responses in order to transform experience into substantive learning (Zlotkowski, n.d.): descriptive accuracy (written in normal font); a critical response to create personal awareness (written in bold font); and an intellectual analysis focusing on course concepts, readings, and themes (written in italics font). These field notes permit students to preserve tracings of their cognitive, somatic, and socioemotional learnings, and integrate them; they also may serve to provoke and revise thinking about alternate ways of working within communities. Students are assessed throughout the three phases of the process and evaluated for their level of engagement in the readings and class activities as well as their ability to weave together the course content with their own experiences in the field.
Art Hive Principles Taught Through Art-Making and Performance Methods A variety of methods are used in this course to support students’ transition into their CESL experiences. This section will focus on three powerful processes: each one, teach one; intention and witness; and métissage. Each one, teach one is a method that emphasizes the democratization of knowledge. It serves to level the playing field between teacher and student and facilitates students developing and building on their own authority of experience (McNiff, 1993). The term each one, teach one comes from the pre-Civil War era when African Americans were not permitted a formal education. In order to share skills, people met informally, often in secret, to learn to read and write. This method was again effectively employed during the civil rights era to resist Jim Crow laws through small citizenship schools where individuals prepared to claim their voting rights (Clark & Brown, 1986). The method was passed down and it is the title of an important book written by Ron Casanova (1996), a street artist who effectively advocated for people’s rights, especially individuals, families, and youth living without homes. To celebrate this way of sharing knowledge, each student leads a 15-minute skill share conducted in small rotating groups, scheduled frequently throughout the term. Skills have ranged from making a raw kale salad to body awareness to sculpting Tibetan Losar butter lamps to constructing beads from recycled paper. Recounting her own experience, Carlee:
I started with craft, which I got involved creatively as a young girl, making greeting cards . . . it was Valentine’s Day during my turn, so I thought it would be nice to do . . . cards. And it was simple. It was just to cut out and fold hearts. But the gesture . . . to give someone a homemade card on Valentine’s Day is really nice . . . I kind of wanted to try to engage in some dialogue with people, “Oh, have you ever received a homemade card? And what did that feel like?” So it wasn’t
about the process, but just remembering those gestures and those moments. Rosemary: Why was that important to you? Carlee:
I think because it’s just the meaning behind the artwork and what artwork can do to someone’s day . . . if you offer them your artwork, I think it’s a really humbling experience to get someone’s work as a gift . . . and I just wanted to promote that.
This activity emphasizes that everyone has a skill to share and the roles of teacher and student are interchangeable in community. Each student contributes a page to a collective zine (a self-published, locally circulated original and repurposed work of texts and images), creatively describing the activity, which is then compiled and distributed (see Figure 25.1). Another method frequently employed in the storefront classroom is preparing students to receive learning from their own spontaneous art-making. Intention and witness is a research inquiry process developed by Pat Allen (2005). Students begin by setting an intention about something they are investigating in their everyday life. The intention is then deliberately set aside and students begin a selfdirected open art-making process. After 45 minutes of art-making, a writing process ensues and the student artmakers answer a specific set of questions. Finally, the class regroups into what is called the “no comment zone,” a circle where individuals simply read without commentary whatever portion of their writing they would like to share, or pass if they prefer. This method helps students see how knowledge can come from within through a powerful visual language. The no-comment rule serves to protect the tender stages of beginning creation and to assist students in being able to listen to their own and others’ inner wisdom. Magali uses this technique to reveal her process of transformation throughout the semester. Vine branches come out of a found tin can, painted in shades of brown, and filled with rocks and pebbles. On the branches, colorful tissue paper flowers are tightly attached with pink and red woolen threads. The flowers are yellow, red, orange, green, and blue; some are big, some are small; they seem to be in bloom. My original intention had to do with “knowing how to build a structure for personal and communal growth.” The process of building this plant-like structure informs my intention in a literal way, and also uncovers the metaphoric. I remember noticing a plastic flower plant in an earthenware pot on the top of a shelf in the studio as I came in and looked around at the beginning of class. The structure I created feels evocative of that image. As this piece is the first one I created in the class, I decide to place it the furthest away from the viewer in the installation art project.
The last method to be described is métissage, derived from the French-Canadian word Métis meaning mixed blood. It is a creative arts strategy of braiding stories
25. Neighborhood Art Hives–•–183
Figure 25.1 Zine Page SOURCE: Daniel Ducheck.
together to create dialogues between and across various perspectives and discourses (Chambers et al., 2008). This method (Dawson et al., 2012) has been modified to increase student participation in discussions about course readings in order to connect challenging concepts with student’s personal experiences. Students are asked to come prepared to discuss a selection of required readings. In groups of three, students discuss these for 30 minutes. Within the last five minutes, they decide on a two-minute story they each could tell using a provocative aspect of the readings (something to which they related, reacted, or critiqued) or a personal story that was triggered by the readings. Each group then “performs” for the entire class. The performance method is specific: One student begins by telling her story, while the other two stand with their backs to the audience. These students then each spontaneously interrupt and begin their own stories. No interruption pattern is followed but only the current speaker faces the audience; and once interrupted, the student turns and again faces away from the spectators. This is repeated until all three stories are told. This process of interruption (rupture) may initially frustrate performers, but generally captivates the audience. Unexpected juxtapositions emerge; unanticipated connections are made. When all groups have completed their métissages, a large group discussion concludes the process. This activity, although initially evoking fear and vulnerability within the students, is an engaging and
effective way to grapple with highly charged and difficult concepts. Additionally, students feel safe enough to share their own stories of trauma within this collective narrative form. It embodies the very real struggle individuals face to reach across differences.
Conclusion: Neighborhood Art Hives for CESL The aim of CESL has been to move university curriculum from a position of learning about communities to learning in solidarity with communities. Community-university art hives, serving as storefront classrooms embedded within neighborhoods, is one viable approach. Research into this storefront classroom highlights the power of servicelearning experiences to shape and reshape professional identity. Students were able to choose, stretch, or revise their identity in a safe environment through collaboration with other students and community members. In 2013, open to the community three days a week, La Ruche d’Art welcomed over 3,400 visits from community members and university students and hosted five collaborative nonjuried art exhibitions. It is a busy art hive of enthusiastic learning and exchange that leads to meaningful next-step action projects in the community. By providing an interstitial shared space for CESL, a restorative
184–•–IV. COMMUNITY
environment is created to safely examine old ways of working through new lenses. In this process, forgotten viable methods from history are revived to experience new ways of working together that respond effectively and creatively to our current challenging times.
La Ruche d’Art, www.facebook.com/pages/La-RuchedArt-St-Henri/174341355959676?fref=ts La Ruche is home to the Canadian art hive movement. It is a free community art studio and science shop open to everyone. Its mission is to make art more accessible, strengthen links between community members, and celebrate diversity through dialogue, art-making, and gardening.
Resources Studio d’art St-Sulpice, http://studiodartsaintsulpice.org The Art Hive Movement, www.arthives.org An interactive community space that welcomes everyone as an artist, the art hive is open to all, especially those living at the lowest incomes or marginalized individuals. Its fundamental premise is that art-making is a human behavior that empathetically connects us one to another.
References and Further Readings Allen, P. B. (2005). Art is a spiritual path. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London, UK: Routledge. Belenky, M. F., Bond, L. A., & Weinstock, J. S. (1997). A tradition that has no name: Nurturing the development of people, families, and communities. New York, NY: Basic Books. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York, NY: Basic Books. Casanova, R. (1996). Each one teach one: Up and out of poverty, memoirs of a street activist. Willimantic, CT: Curbstone Books. Chambers, C., Hasebe-Ludt, E., Donald, D., Hurren, W., Leggo, C., & Oberg, A. (2008). Métissage: A research praxis. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (pp. 141–153). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clark, S. P. (Author), & Brown, C. S. (Ed.). (1986). Ready from within: Septima Clark & the civil rights movement, a first person narrative. Navarro, CA: Wild Trees Press. Dawson, T., Anglin, J., Ishiguro, E., Hammond, C., Scobie, R., Nutting, C., . . . & Cirillo, A. (2012). Seeking internationalized
This community art studio is a partnership project between Concordia University and l’Office municipal d’habitation de Montréal (OMHM); St-Sulpice social housing serves immigrant families. The community-university art hive’s mission is to build community through intergenerational art-making.
curricula: “Learning without borders” as an institutional strategy for transformative change. Preconference workshop held at the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, June 19–22, 2012. Irwin, R. L. (1997). Pedagogy for a gender sensitive art practice. In R. L. Irwin & K. Grauer (Eds.), Readings in Canadian art teacher education (pp. 247–252). Boucherville, QC: Canadian Society for Education through Art. McNiff, S. A. (1993). The authority of experience. Arts in Psychotherapy, 20(1), 3–9. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York, NY: Paragon. Timm-Bottos, J. (2005). The necessity of public homeplace in urban revitalization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Watkins, M., & Schulman, H. (2008). Toward psychologies of liberation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Zlotkowski, E. (n.d.). Service-learning: Three-part journal entries. Retrieved from http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_ send/7329
Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank Concordia University VPRGS (Vice-President of Research and Graduate Studies) Seed Funding, J. W. McConnell Family Foundation, as well as the students, staff, and community members of the art hive initiative.
26 COMMUNITY ASSETS AND INDIVIDUAL EXPERTISE Educating Future Professionals Through Community Service-Learning LEELA VISWANATHAN Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
A
neighborhood located north of downtown Kingston, Ontario, Canada, is characterized by intergenerational poverty, school closures, declining affordable housing stock, an aging population, and a high school dropout rate that is higher than the provincial average. Neighborhood residents strongly identify with their neighborhood and are expert witnesses to the opportunities that have eviscerated their community and the challenges that have remained. Distrust of neighborhood outsiders is the norm. Faith-based organizations and church missions are among the longstanding organizations in this community. An Anglican minister of a Christian mission in this neighborhood approached the author at a city-sponsored event about sustainability and they started a conversation about working with members of the mission to develop a vision for revitalizing the north Kingston neighborhood, starting with the mission grounds. Their conversation ignited the spark for engaging in a community-university partnership and a project for service-learning. This chapter focuses on a service-learning and community engagement project that involved 14 graduate students in urban and regional planning at Queen’s University and the Kingston North Anglican Ministries in collaboration with the Good Shepherd Mission. The aim of the project was to identify and develop assets within
the mission’s geographic community at the same time that the students gain skills in social planning and build individual expertise. According to the Canadian Institute of Planners (n.d), planning is an accredited profession involving “the scientific, aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities and services with a view to securing the physical, economic and social efficiency, health and well-being of urban and rural communities” (para 1). As a subdiscipline of urban and regional planning, social planning “implies particular attention to the spatial manifestations of social injustice” (Healey, 2007, p. 134). The chapter begins with an introduction to communityuniversity partnerships; it introduces faith-based organizations and a role for secular and faith-based partners in community development. The next section provides a brief literature review of service-learning and reflexivity in professional education with an emphasis on the profession of urban planning, and thoughts on business and social work professions. The author then explains the relevance of asset-based community development tools, and the practices and methods of service-learning used in this project. The implications of service-learning for students and the community partners are addressed, and the chapter concludes by identifying areas for future research. 185
186–•–IV. COMMUNITY
Context: Community-University Partnerships in Service-Learning Why are community-university partnerships important to service-learning and community engagement? Universities and communities in North America share a long history of building partnerships with each other to revitalize urban neighborhoods and to build social capital (Gilderbloom & Mullins, 2005). Universities are noted for having a concentration of resources and experts in the form of students and academic researchers. Community organizations experience issues “on the ground” and may not have access to research facilities, databases, or cutting-edge technology to help them to develop innovative ideas and strategies for tackling issues. Community-university partnerships can be transformative by offering opportunities for all participants to get a reality check on how they understand problems in a given context and to address imbalances of power among partners. Connecting faith-based communities with secular organizations to revitalize neighborhoods offers another possibility for community-university partnerships. Historically, faith-based organizations have offered services (e.g., faith services, food and community kitchens, emergency support, meeting and gathering spaces) and support to communities, especially when the state (i.e., federal, regional, or municipal agencies and authorities) is not present or has withdrawn from community development efforts (Adkins, Occhipinti, & Hefferan, 2010). All organizations, be they secular or faith based, can fall within the same spectrum of organizations that have the purpose to serve different communities. Organizations may simply vary according to how much they engage with a faith community or the outside world. Consequently, it is plausible for faith-based organizations to collaborate with secular-based public universities to achieve mutually beneficial goals.
Review of Literature: Service-Learning and Professional Education Service-learning is gaining respect in professional education, particularly in the implementation of reflexivity as a means for connecting teaching, learning, and professional development. In his foundational work The Reflective Practitioner, Donald Schön (1983) suggests that professional courses do not readily teach students skills for solving problems in the real world. He posits that exercises in reflection could equip students with skills and competencies that enable them to learn how to handle unexpected situations. Planning researchers and teachers alike have noted the importance of understanding service-learning in professional planning education as a process whereby students and community partners become more comfortable with the presence of uncertainty in their collaborative activities
(Sletto, 2011). In turn, service-learning relates to processes of “socially contingent knowledge production” whereby knowledge is shaped by the interaction among participants and with the context (p. 405). Carolyn Taylor and Sue White (2001) postulate that reflexivity is relevant to professional social work education. Managerial and technical-procedural approaches to building expertise are the norm in social work education; however, they are not adequately representative of the types of activities and learning that happen in the profession. According to these authors, reflexivity is crucial to developing skills of judgment in social work. Servicelearning provides an appropriate context in professional education to enable students to learn to act reflexively, such that as “practitioners [they] will subject their own and others’ knowledge claims and practices to analysis” (p. 55). In business and professional executive education, service-learning offers opportunities for learning the practice of self-management. Peter F. Drucker (1999) shows how knowing one’s own skills limitations can also assist one to self-manage and learn to perform optimally in a given profession. Ann Cunliffe (2004) has drawn from Drucker (1999) by asking her students to self-assess and record in personal journals how they handle uncertainty.
Course Design and Methods in Service-Learning for Professional Planning Education Queen’s University was established in 1841; it has approximately 26,000 graduate, undergraduate, and professional students and is located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada (pop. 123,363 in 2011) (Statistics Canada, 2012). The servicelearning class started in the fall semester and was designed under an existing 12-week (three hours per week) social planning graduate course. All 14 students in the course were enrolled in the two-year graduate planning program and will be seeking related careers in planning upon graduation. There were four key learning objectives in the course: (1) to develop a deeper understanding of the epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues underpinning social planning; (2) to gain exposure to planning scenarios that involve uncertainty and require openness to social experimentation; (3) to develop proficiency as critical “readers” and “witnesses” of social and cultural change and/or continuity in a neighborhood context.; and finally, (4) to engage in reflective planning practice. While service-learning is a means to gain valuable professional experience, this was not a primary learning objective. Service-learning in this case was a means to link experiential learning with Schön’s (1983) emphasis on reflexivity in professional training and development, and the recognition that social justice is foundational to social planning practice (Healey, 2007).
26. Community Assets and Individual Expertise–•–187
From Precourse Planning to Week 3 Setting the Stage for Service-Learning and Partnership Building In the summer months, the course instructor and the minister (acting on behalf of the community partner) designed the course deliverables, the parameters of a university-faith-based organization partnership, a communication plan, and a schedule for community and site visits and workshops. Ethics approval for course-based student research was sought and obtained from the General Research Ethics Board of the university to ensure that the course content and the students’ research would be conducted according to ethical guidelines. During the first two weeks of the project, students were exposed to the concept and practice of service-learning, community-university partnerships, and the important role that faith-based organizations have played historically in local community development. None of the students had previous experience with service-learning courses; consequently, the class discussed the strengths and challenges of community-university partnerships, the skills development in project management, professional judgment, and research, and different ways of coping with and addressing moments of uncertainty. The minister was introduced in Week 2, at which time students were able to ask the minister questions regarding the mission and her work as well as the challenges and possibilities for the class’s collaboration with the mission. Students were given readings from a variety of sources, including different handbooks for running workshops and facilitating small group discussions. Students were assigned weekly readings in John Kretzmann and John McKnight’s (1993) Building Communities From the Inside Out, and were expected to read the complete text of Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman, and Michael Patton (2007) Getting to Maybe at their own pace. Both texts were instrumental to the student reflection papers. Site Visit: Identifying Individual Expertise and Community Assets By Week 3 the instructor and the minister took the class on a walking tour of the neighborhood surrounding the mission. Students had read the needs assessment that had been conducted on the neighborhoods of North Kingston (Kingston Community Health Centres, 2010) and the site visit gave them a chance to compare their book knowledge with their initial observations about the neighborhood. Needs-based models of community development are based on perceptions of communities as having deficits, whereas asset-based approaches recognize that a community has strengths and in turn “empower residents to make their own decisions” (Delano-Oriaran, 2012, p. 404). The students were then asked to reflect on what they saw as brick-and-mortar assets in the community compared to
what they had read in the needs assessment; this would inform their first reflective paper for the course. After the tour and site visit, the class convened in the basement of an Anglican church located near the mission. Students were asked by the course instructor about what they considered to be their own individual gifts, skills, passions, and expertise that they could teach and share with others. These four elements—gifts (something one is born with); skills (something learned); passion (what one is drawn to or driven by in life); and teachable expertise (something one knows well enough to teach another)—are central to the processes of asset-based community development noted by Kretzmann and McKnight (1993). For example, the minister started the discussion by identifying her gift as the ability to talk to anyone, public speaking as a skill that she has developed professionally, social justice as a passion, and religion and conflict resolution as knowledge and expertise that she can teach. Working in pairs, each student then introduced these characteristics of their student partner to the rest of class, and these were all documented on a flipchart for all participants to see. Some students found the exercise to be so difficult that they passed their turn and responded only to some of the questions. These students admitted to never thinking of themselves in this manner, and that they felt to do so would be tantamount to bragging, when in fact, as noted by the minister, all participants in the class were learning about each other, including their strengths and their limits. Students further reflected on these events in a reflection paper due during Week 4.
From Classroom to Community Visioning: Weeks 4 to 7 Designing a Visioning Workshop In the week following the site visit, the students, the minister, and the course instructor returned to the classroom and identified the goals associated with the types of projects that could build upon the physical assets of the mission, including the kitchen, the building, and the grounds. In addition, students discussed documenting the different assets within the broader community from the standpoint of mission congregants. The students wanted to build a visioning workshop for mission members with the minister’s assistance. Students reflected on the mission’s building and grounds and then formed three groups of four or five students each to develop plans on three topics. These topics were (1) affordable housing on mission grounds, (2) community garden and kitchen at the mission, and (3) community asset directory and map. During Week 5, a local professional planner and public consultation expert was invited by the instructor to listen to the students’ ideas for designing the visioning workshop. The workshop would need to enable participants to share their insights on the topics in a comfortable and fair way. The students took two weeks to plan the visioning workshop.
188–•–IV. COMMUNITY
In the few days prior to the visioning workshop, the students went to the mission and set up the basement space where the workshop would take place. They baked items for refreshments and developed a workbook containing the workshop agenda and left enough room in the booklet for participants to note down their own thoughts. The students were developing their own professional judgment by drawing from advice from a respected planning professional and the minister, and from the weeks of work completed thus far. Implementing the Visioning Workshop The visioning workshop was held at the mission on an evening during Week 7. Student learning outcomes from the visioning workshop would be evaluated through a second reflection paper due during Week 8. Each student team had developed questions based on their topic that they would pose to mission members in a round-robin session. There were 20 mission members including a few members from a nearby church and a member of the Anglican Diocese. Discussions about each topic were summarized on flipcharts by table facilitators and student notetakers took copious detailed notes during each round of discussions. Two students circulated the room as observers. Their job was to identify any difficulties encountered during the workshop, and if necessary, to address them with the instructor’s assistance. These observers would also offer constructive feedback during the postmortem classroom discussion the following week.
From Workshop Evaluation to Project Deliverables: Weeks 8 to 10 In Week 8, students shared their learning from the workshop. The professional planner and public consultation expert from Week 5 returned to the classroom, listened to what the students had learned and how they would synthesize the information obtained, and then offered her expert advice. Some students referred to their own sense of discomfort when community members did not participate or offered negative responses to ideas and options that were being considered. Other students pointed to the difficulty of presenting a “neutral professional position” as a facilitator, observer, or notetaker. All the students spoke about how much they learned from the workshop participants. Students worked in their groups and concentrated on completing a report and preparing a presentation about what they learned from the visioning workshop and research that they would give back to the mission.
Final Presentations: Weeks 11 and 12 On Week 11, students made preliminary presentations to their peers and to the course instructor for feedback. On the last day of the class, students showcased their final reports and made presentations to the members of the Anglican Diocese of Kingston, including the bishop, a local developer, faculty members, and student peers.
Course Deliverables The course deliverables were submitted throughout the course of the semester. There were three individual reflective papers (worth a total of 40%) and an individual student overall participation grade (10%) assigned in the course. In addition, a group final report (worth 30%) and a group presentation (20%) completed the course deliverables. Reflection and experiential learning are crucial to service-learning in professional education; the body of practice-based literature on the topic could benefit from more examples. In turn, it is important to this author to share instructions for the three reflection papers associated with this service-learning project, as shown in the box on page 189.
Implications and Future Directions Prior to this course, the Mission members did not have a connection with the university and were struggling to identify a starting point for developing their mission and surrounding neighborhood. The asset-based approach introduced by the students offered a baseline for the members of the mission to think differently about themselves and their community in terms of assets rather than needs. The minister and Kingston North Anglican Ministries benefited from receiving three plain-language research consultant-type reports from the students. First, the community asset directory was made available in print and electronically for easy access and updating. The report on the potential for a community kitchen and garden pointed to the bylaws and restrictions to the potential activity, and it also offered insights into hopeful opportunities if the facilities were to be upgraded. The report on the potential for affordable housing on mission grounds became the foundation for a subsequent implementation plan that another planning student developed in conjunction with the minister and the mission’s housing committee during the next (winter) semester, a plan that subsequently would be considered for adoption. This service-learning project led to plans that could ultimately be implemented by the mission. The initial site visit was a real boost to the students’ sense of self and a starting point to their learning about how to manage their own gifts, skills, and passions and to apply them building their planning expertise in this course. The subsequent visioning workshop brought the students closer to the dynamics of the mission and its members. The presence of the minister throughout the learning process helped the students stay connected with the community and to build their capacity to self-manage and cope with the uncertainty of project development. In the standardized end-of-course evaluations, students noted how 12 weeks was too short to build a collaboration and to how four weeks was a tight timeframe to complete
26. Community Assets and Individual Expertise–•–189
Reflection Paper #1 (10%) Write a 1000-word essay reflecting upon the following: • What have you learned from readings and the role of faith-based organizations in social planning thus far? • What were your thoughts about working with faith-based organizations in north Kingston prior to visiting the neighborhoods in which the Kingston North Anglican Ministries is located? • What were your thoughts after the site visit? What were your primary responses about the area we are studying (e.g., moral, emotional, rational-scientific)? • How do you think these responses are informing your learning as a planner? Reflection Paper #2 (20%) Write 1200 to 1500 words double-spaced about the links between social innovation (see Westley et al., 2007) and the community-based asset framework as presented by Kretzmann and McKnight (1993). In addition, what are your thoughts and reflections about the visioning workshop and your contribution to it? What did you learn? Considering the ethics of community-based research, what were the risks and benefits to the people involved? Reflection Paper #3 (10%) Please reflect on some or all of the following questions when constructing your reflective essay of 1000 words: • How have you been adjusting to the fluid, somewhat informal, situation-contingent way of resolving issues in your social planning project? • Have you encountered unexpected situations and if so, how have you resolved them? • What are your strengths and weaknesses when confronted with uncertainty? • What have you learned so far from collaborating with a community partner? • How will you apply learning from this course to becoming a reflective practitioner?
a professional project, and yet, they found the learning process to be invigorating and noted how it improved confidence in their own skills and capacities. Although there are documented resources that help students connect service-learning outcomes with career planning, more practical research in this area is needed in order to benefit students and potential employers in diverse sectors, including urban and regional planning. There is also a need for further academic research into how community service-learning offers unique educational and training opportunities for students in serviceoriented professions such as planning, nursing, law, and social work. Furthermore, universities and the not-forprofit sector would benefit from research on how to best incorporate developmental evaluation techniques in assessing both community-university partnership outcomes and reflexivity in student service-learning outcomes.
Resources Toronto Christian Resource Centre (TCRC), www.tcrc.ca The TCRC is resource center that offers case examples of housing and service provision of faith-based organizations.
Students in planning benefit from this website to identify case examples and precedents for faith-based community hubs and affordable housing developments that could be built upon and customized for the context associated with their project. The Asset-Based Community Development Institute, www.abcdinstitute.org/abcd09 The Asset-Based Community Development Institute offers multiple resources on asset-based community development and capacity building. Based out of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, the Institute provides resources such as research papers and toolkits, all of which are downloadable and can be distributed if attributed appropriately. Putting Community Service-Learning into Action, www.hrcouncil.ca/CSLWebinars.cfm The Putting Community Service-Learning into Action website of The Human Resource Council of Canada and the Canadian Alliance for Community ServiceLearning includes webinars and online resources that assist educators and students to assess the benefits of service-learning for their own career planning and development.
190–•–IV. COMMUNITY
References and Further Readings Adkins, J., Occhipinti, L., & Hefferan, T. (Eds.). (2010). Not by faith alone: Social services, social justice, and faith-based organizations in the United States. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Canadian Institute of Planners. (n.d.). Becoming a planner: What is planning? Retrieved from http://www.cip-icu.ca/ Becoming-a-Planner# Cunliffe, A. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407–426. Delano-Oriaran, O. (2012). Infusing Umoja, an authentic and culturally engaging service-learning model, into multicultural education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 403–414. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 64–74. Gilderbloom, J. I., & Mullins, R. L., Jr. (2005). Promise and betrayal: Universities and the battle for sustainable urban neighborhoods. Albany: State University of New York Press. Green, G. P., & Haines, A. (2002). Asset building & community development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Healey, P. (2007). On the social nature of planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 8(2), 133–136. Janzen, R., & Wiebe, D. (2010). Putting God in the logic model: Developing a national framework for the evaluation of faith-based organizations. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 25(1), 1–26. Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2013). Designing and managing programs: An effectiveness-based approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kingston Community Health Centres. (2010). Community Foundation for Kingston & Area 2010 annual report. Retrieved from http://www.cfka.org/sites/cfka.org/files/ Files/annual-report/Annual%20Report%202010%20 Web%20Version%20Final.pdf
Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing community’s assets. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications. Nicotera, N., Cutforth, N., Fetz, E., & Thompson, S. S. (2011). Dedication to community engagement: A higher education conundrum? Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 4(1), 37–49. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Toronto, ON, Canada: Guilford Press. Roakes, S., & Norris-Tirrell, D. (2009) Community service learning in planning education: A framework for course development. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), 100–110. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Sletto, B. (2010). Educating reflective practitioners: Learning to embrace the unexpected through service learning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(4), 403–415. Statistics Canada. (2012). Focus on geography series, 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-310XWE2011004. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/ census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Index-eng.cfm Taylor, C., & White, S. (2001). Knowledge, truth and reflexivity: The problem of judgement in social work. Journal of Social Work, 1(1), 37–59. Viswanathan, L., Whitelaw, G., & Meligrana, J. (2012). Evaluating the role of the project course in professional planning education and its influence on planning policy and practice. Planning Practice and Research, 27, 387–403. Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. Q. (2007). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed. Toronto, ON, Canada: Vintage Canada.
27 THE NEED FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT IN COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING PARTNERSHIPS TO EVALUATE COMMUNITY IMPACTS ELIZABETH TRYON
J. ASHLEIGH ROSS
University of Wisconsin–Madison
University of Wisconsin–Madison
MARIAN SLAUGHTER University of Wisconsin–Madison
O
ver the last 20 years, the practices of communitybased service-learning, community-based research, and other forms of civic engagement have become part of the curriculum at virtually all higher education institutions in the United States. This chapter outlines issues in the relationship between the academy and its community partners within these practices, particularly regarding the need to evaluate impact on communities. The literature and context of this gap in research, some current issues, and some models currently in use are detailed. The chapter also discusses compelling reasons for a shift in the paradigm, or the way in which higher education institutions perceive, practice, and evaluate engagement for better community impact, and strategies to begin to make this change. There are numerous reasons to be conscious of the impacts of service- and community-based learning partnerships on the community that students are interacting with:
Practical. Students want to make sense of the world, and they will get more authentic learning from mutually respectful interactions that achieve the best impact for the community.
Ethical. Many community partners come from lowincome and marginalized communities whose resources are already spread thin. Under these pressures, community impact must be a main priority of any campus-community partnerships so that the community resources are not wasted and efforts increase community capacity. Otherwise, what’s in it for them?
These reasons are among the arguments detailed later in this chapter for shifting the way higher education institutions perceive, practice, and evaluate engagement for better community impact. A note on terminology: The Morgridge Center for Public Service, a clearinghouse for engaged scholarship at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, uses the term community-based learning (CBL) more than the
Financial. Higher education in the 21st century is reaching a “crucible moment,” as reported by the Association of American Colleges & Universities in 2011. Many state governments are trying to erode the influence of public universities, or blatantly criticizing them for being irrelevant and disconnected from modern society (Walsh, 2012). It therefore makes sense to put a fair amount of weight on community impact as it affects public perception of universities in their communities—the ivory tower is an unwanted neighbor. The inability to show convincing change can undermine future institutional support (Ruch-Ross, Keller, Miller, Bassewitz, & Melinkovich, 2008).
191
192–•–IV. COMMUNITY
term service-learning to be more inclusive of a variety of strategies beyond direct “service,” including advocacy, project-based organizing, and community-based research, which can all fit under the CBL umbrella. Community partners also may interpret service as either denoting the service they are providing the university as a co-educator; or as a type of academic condescension, as research done at the UW-Madison by Randy Stoecker and Elizabeth Tryon (2009), points out. Why parse terms? Language guides the way people interact and reflects beliefs about a relationship or activity. Many other institutions and scholars are also moving toward this and other more equitable terms.
Background, History, and Literature Review The Carnegie Classification and other programs such as the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll reward academic institutions for the number of student hours spent on service, as well as the number of courses that include a service component. Although engagement practices have been studied extensively over several decades for evidence of enhanced student learning (Astin & Sax, 1998; Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996; Strage, 2000; Ward, 2000), there is little evidence of its impact on or proof of concern for its benefit to communities. An area that has some solid evidence of impact is in youth development and mentoring (Weiler et al., 2013), but the literature overall is scant. The discrepancy between institutional enthusiasm for servicelearning and attending to community impacts has been a growing concern for a number of scholars (Blouin & Perry, 2009; Cruz & Giles, 2000; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). As Stoecker and Tryon (2009) point out, “By not knowing what service-learning does to communities it purports to serve, we risk creating unintended side effects that exacerbate . . . the problems those communities suffer from” (p. 7).
Outcomes Versus Impacts Stoecker, Mary Beckman, and Bo Hee Min (2010) draw helpful and important distinctions between CBL outputs, outcomes, and true impacts. The output is the labor or research provided by the academic partner, the outcomes are the “documentable changes” in the community, and impacts are the “accumulated consequences of the outcomes” (Stoecker & Beckman, 2009). These nuanced distinctions reflect the degree to which partnerships address structural or organizational changes in the community as evidenced in the short, medium, and long term. Stoecker and Beckman (2009) go on to point out that even the outcomes may not be noticeable for several years. Impacts—the culmination of outcomes—may not be apparent for even longer. What often happens, though, is
that the evaluation stops at the conclusion of the service; few academics circle back after a few years to determine the outcomes and impacts. Much of the literature on the community benefit in CBL is geared toward partner perspectives on the relationship and activities (Blouin & Perry, 2009; Sandy & Holland, 2006; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009), or outputs and outcomes (Reeb & Folger, 2013). Many assessments take the form of superficial agency satisfaction surveys that cannot delve deeply and only serve to point out some interesting side issues such as power differentials between university and community. For example, according to Stoecker and Tryon (2009), “We heard a number of organization staff express concern that if they turned down offers of service learners, they could be taken off the list and might not hear of other future offers” (p. 34). Nadinne Cruz and Dwight E. Giles (2000) called for more research to address this lack of information about community impacts and for more models to address this information gap. One must tease out the difference between evaluating the health of the partnership as the “unit of analysis” (Cruz & Giles, 2000) and the impact of the university’s involvement on the organization’s ability to build community capacity. Admittedly, it is difficult to discern what metrics to use to measure real community impact. Since community work doesn’t happen in a sterile lab or societal vacuum, it is tricky to tell whether the involvement of one student or one course or even one campus was the piece that reduced the crime rate, raised graduation rates, or decreased food insecurity. What is hampering progress in developing more sophisticated models to derive authentic data? It is not that all academic partners are unconcerned with community impacts. It is critical to note that universities are not really designed to evaluate community impacts in CBL (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Stoecker, Beckman, & Min, 2010). There are political reasons for the lack of research—namely, funding issues and the academy’s emphasis on student learning—as well as the intellectual challenges of defining community and methodological challenges of controlling variables. Stoecker et al. (2010) point out additional reasons: Most CBL projects are not designed to identify goals, evaluation needs to be integrated into the actual project, and there is no infrastructure to support this type of evaluation. If scholars want to rigorously evaluate community impacts, structural changes must be made at the institutional level and partners must clearly articulate goals during the project design and implementation stages, in addition to creating a long-term evaluation strategy. The next section discusses issues that are critical to address if CBL projects are to achieve both successful community outcomes and impacts. Following, several models are described that have been used in meeting those challenges and moving toward designing projects with community impact as a goal equal to that of student learning outcomes.
27. The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Community-Based Learning Partnerships to Evaluate Community Impacts–•–193
Current Issues in Prioritizing Community Impacts in CBL Projects Failure to identify and address important program elements can undermine any well-intentioned CBL project’s ability to focus on positive community impacts (Buchanan, Miller, & Wallerstein, 2007; Reeb & Folger, 2013). While there is no definitive list of critical program elements, there does appear to be an important set that is challenging to successfully address (Bushouse, 2005; Strand, Cutforth, Stoecker, Marullo, & Donohue, 2003). This list includes (a) poor identification of the targeted “community,” (b) insufficient project planning, (c) ineffective communication, (d) inadequate power sharing and resource allocation, and (e) insufficient trust and empathy between partners.
Poor Identification of the Targeted Community In traditional service-learning programs, the term community is commonly used as shorthand to describe a nonacademic or campus group or agency interacting with campus members. However, the concept is complex and embedded in power relationships. Consider that the concept of community involves both exclusive and inclusive aspects. While CBL tries to honor and respect communities as units of identity (Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998), it is critical to clarify who the target community is if the work is to value community impacts (Brown, 2004; Cruz & Giles, 2000). Without this clarity, an academic partner may initiate work with a stakeholder (e.g., group, agency, or individual) not representative of its constituents’ interests (Hohmann & Shear, 2002). In such a situation, the CBL faculty or researchers cannot be sure that the issues investigated or strategies implemented are of importance to the targeted community; hence, project success is jeopardized. Second, all communities are multifaceted, so care must be taken to identify and include as many different groups of constituents as possible, to minimize any work being captured by a power bloc that has alienated other groups (Chen, Milstein, Anguiano, Sandoval, & Knudsen, 2012). Poor stakeholder identification can squander the good will of a larger community toward the project, including particular academic partners, and essentially foul the nest for future engagement.
Insufficient Planning CBL project planning can encompass many activities (e.g., logistics, fund-raising, outreach). As a project grows in complexity, planning requirements increase and must continue throughout. Poor planning can produce widespread negative consequences for the community partners (Reeb & Folger, 2013), dashing hopes of achieving highquality community impact. Of the many CBL planning
activities, there are three that CBL projects struggle with and which require sustained attention and effort to provide: (a) adequate time, (b) sufficient institutional support, and (c) adequate funding (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009; Horowitz, Robinson, & Seifer, 2009). It is difficult to overestimate that amount of time needed for adequate CBL project planning. Relationship building and mutual trust must be grown and nurtured (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). Difficulty in predicting project time requirements can result in students dropping out of projects. Yea-Wen Chen, Tema Milstein, Claudia Anguiano, Jennifer Sandoval, and Lissa Knudsen (2012) document that by the end of their CBL project, 12 out of 15 graduate students had dropped out due to time constraints. The iterative nature of CBL projects often requires more time to complete than more traditional research (Israel et al., 1998). If extra time allotments are not expected, the CBL project process can also frustrate community partners, especially if it seems that much of the time is spent planning rather engaging in real work (Lantz, Viruell-Fuentes, Israel, Softley, & Guzman, 2001). Both of these issues can result in aborted work, which creates not only no positive impact, but a negative experience that will be remembered. Sufficient institutional support is also critical to the success of CBL projects, particularly community-based research (McCallister, 2008; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). Without university or departmental support, it can be difficult for professors to obtain release time or enough flexibility in their schedules to productively manage community-based projects (McCallister, 2008; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). Further, a lack of perceived support and commitment from the university can result in community partners abandoning projects. Finally, one of the most significant impediments to successful CBL programs is inadequate or inconsistent funding through the life of the project (Lantz et al., 2001). While it may be relatively “easy” to obtain initial funding for a CBL project, it is much more challenging to sustain project funding, especially due to the extra time required for completion (Israel et al., 2006). Resources as related to power issues will also be discussed later in this section.
Poor Communication Communication is the lifeblood of most if not all human endeavor. Just as poor circulation of blood can deprive the body of elements necessary for life, poor communication between partners can kill a project before it gets off the ground. Without clear and consistent patterns and methods of communication, misunderstandings easily arise and are difficult to untangle (Strand et al., 2003). Further, poor communication is often a primary source of mistrust. Communication is inherently imbued with messages about culture and power (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Therefore, when faculty and students enter communities and organizations, they must consider their style
194–•–IV. COMMUNITY
of communication through a lens of sensitivity. The language of the academy is frequently highly technical. Without awareness, use of specialized jargon, acronyms and the like can pose a significant impediment to mutual understanding (Preiser-Houy & Navarrete, 2010). Aside from taking care with speech, it is equally important to practice careful, active listening—marked by such qualities as patience, openness, silence, and humility (Wallerstein & Duran, 2007)—all of which support partnership building and trust.
Inadequate Power Sharing In CBL work, there are two expressions of power that are particularly challenging to manage: decision making and sharing of resources (Strand et al., 2003). First, the decision-making process is particularly vulnerable to power differentials (Strand et al., 2003). Creating structures where community partners can negotiate authority over processes and actions that impact them is fundamental. This does not mean, however, that a community partner would want to have the final say on every action (Strand et al., 2003; Wallerstein & Duran, 2007). What is important is that the community partner has authority to determine which decisions are critical to weigh in on. Second, a core principle of CBL is that community partners possess knowledge and experiences that are essential for project success (Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010). However, it is generally the case that the academic partner has access to more resources in a variety of forms (e.g., money, personnel, technology, specialized knowledge) than the community partners involved. Depending on how these resources are made available, the resource-rich academic partner can use their financial advantage to control the process (Lantz et al., 2001). The ability to provide financial and other incentives to traditionally underresourced populations to increase their participation is more conducive to successful outcomes, but due to institutional inflexibility, it is difficult or disallowed to budget for (Horowitz et al., 2009).
Lack of Trust Between Partners One of the key impediments to creating a successful community-university CBL program is the inability to develop trust (Israel et al., 1998). According to Carol Horowitz, Mimsie Robinson, and Sarena Seifer (2009), it is not uncommon for researchers and outside organizations to encounter significant levels of distrust by community members. This distrust is due to complex factors such as a history of racism and socioeconomic marginalization of minority communities by various social institutions such as health-care systems. Unfortunately, although trust is fundamental to the success of community-based learning relationships, it is often the hardest element to build and the easiest to undermine as the parties involved must
figure out what actions “count” toward the building of trust. Paula Lantz, Edna Viruell-Fuentes, Barbara A. Israel, Donald Softley, and Ricardo Guzman (2001) noted that academics must take care not to assume all community actions are indications of trust: Some board members have cautioned against interpreting this early willingness to participate as “trust” in the project truly having the best interests of the community in minds. Rather, they explained their participation as keeping an open mind, viewing the URC [Urban Research Center] as a potential vehicle for channeling services and resources into their communities. (p. 500)
Although the building of trust must be negotiated, community-based practitioners and researchers recognize some basic areas that are sensitive to the issue (Strand et al., 2003). Is there transparency in decision making? Is there follow-through on promises? Are relevant parties included throughout? Without trust, there is little chance of developing a relationship where all parties are given the “benefit of the doubt” (i.e., individuals’ actions are assumed to be well-meaning when there is choice). Without this factor, if a partner’s action produces harm, another partner may assume that the harm was intentional.
Community-Based Research and Institutional Review Board Limitations As might be detected, many, if not all, issues impacting CBL projects intersect and overlap each other. Community-based research (CBR) projects, as a special type of CBL, are subject to extra challenges that require careful consideration. Of critical importance to CBR and one of its most significant impediments is the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process (Ahmed, Beck, Maurana, & Newton, 2004; Buchanan et al., 2007). The IRB is an essential tool required by research institutions to protect the rights and ensure the safety of people participating in research. However, Brown et al. (2010) discuss in detail the negative impacts that can result from the IRB process due to limited understanding of CBR. For example, IRBs commonly assume that the research participant is an individual, whereas in CBR projects, the participant is more often a group of individuals. While the IRB has power to enforce the compliance of academics, it is not designed to ensure compliance of nonacademics. Consequently, in those projects where community partners are also researchers, if IRB requirements are not satisfactorily addressed, the project can be held up, creating misunderstandings and distrust among community partners. Further, the IRB training process can be tedious and time-consuming for collaborating partners who may need access to the data. Community members do not always understand why
27. The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Community-Based Learning Partnerships to Evaluate Community Impacts–•–195
they would be prohibited from access to data and other information that they had provided, and that refusal could easily be experienced as unreasonable and insulting. While it is clearly necessary to comply with the IRB’s mandate to protect the rights and safety of human subjects, some degree of IRB reform would be beneficial in supporting CBR. The next section presents several models that can support researchers in addressing many of these challenges to successful and equitable CBL projects and the evaluation of their impact on the community.
Diagnose • (CBR)
Evaluate • (CBR)
Community Development Model CBL/CBR
Prescribe • (CBR)
Current Models for Evaluating Impact of CBL Many existing models do not address all the challenges referred to in the last section. Melinda Clarke (2003) developed the 3-I model to evaluate the community impact. This model examines the process of the partnership and documents impact at three different stages— during the initiation of service, the implementation of project, and the impact at the end of the partnership. The model has promise due to the built-in periodic assessment that can accommodate changes in the program based on feedback. Roger Reeb and Susan Folger (2013) offer the PESM (Psycho-Ecological Systems Model) for community impact evaluation, but the model is complex and it is not entirely clear how the elements interact to produce outcomes. Mary Beckman, Naomi Penney, and Bethany Cockburn (2011) call for the adoption of a community development approach to CBL that views the community as a complex social system and recommends building in a “feedback process” as a way to ensure that the partnership is moving toward the community goals. This model, described as a community impact framework, incorporates evaluation of the project into the program itself so that changes can be made to the project as it progresses. This idea is rooted in what Stoecker first called a “project-based research cycle” (2005) and later refined by Stoecker and Beckman (2009) (see Figure 27.1). Although all of these models provide tools for evaluation, they do not address infrastructural challenges to support evaluation and dissemination and are, therefore, not adequate to address the institutional-level evaluation of community impacts. A project-based model (Brescia, Mullins, & Miller, 2009; O’Keefe & Hogg, 1999) is a possible way to overcome the issues of conflicting expectations, longevity, and time constraints—the “nailing the Jell-O to the wall.” Scholars like Beckman and Stoecker have been moving toward designing community-based learning and research frameworks that maximize community impact (Beckman, Penney, & Cockburn, 2011). Use of this model, where project goals are delineated up front, provides a clear
Implement • (CBL)
Figure 27.1 How Community Development Model Helps Achieve Authentic Community Impact SOURCE: Adapted from Research Methods for Community Change: A Project-Based Approach, by R. Stoecker, the “Project-Based Research Cycle” figure, p. 8. 2005, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
baseline by which project results can be measured and evaluated. This shift in the paradigm to an upfront view of projects from the community’s perspective and allowance from the institution to do things differently is needed to reach the heart of this issue. The community development model, as described by Stoecker and Tryon in an interview with Inside Higher Ed, forces us, first of all, to have actual goals for service learning rather than just placing volunteers with agency staff who have to struggle to constantly find things for them to do. Second, it gives us something to actually measure or document. (as cited in Maternowski, 2009, para. 4)
Measurements are often required for funding purposes, reports, and classifications, for example. Quantitative data or other solid evidence of impact on community is challenging to obtain. However, Andrew Furco finds it is possible to look at segments of the project and choose one to three issues for which there are some metrics. For example, in CBL projects addressing environmental issues, if the goal is to study how increased bus ridership is beneficial to reducing carbon emissions from cars, data might readily be derived from city transportation departments regarding a baseline of ridership and carbon outputs from cars. Then to extrapolate, if a recommendation is implemented to increase
196–•–IV. COMMUNITY
bus ridership of college students based on the results of a survey given to students, a measurable increase in student ridership with its correlation of reducing emissions could be attributed at least in part to that course’s work (personal communication, December 10, 2012).
Science Shop Model The concept of the “science shop” arose in Europe in the 1970s as a direct response to citizens’ requests for understandable documents on topics of importance to society, such as nuclear power plant safety, and expanded to encompass all types of CBR (Tryon & Steinhaus, in press). This is a model where the paradigm is turned inside out: the research question starts with the desired community outcomes and impact, and using a demanddriven and bottom-up approach (Steinhaus, n.d.), reaches back into the academy for assistance. Hundreds of science shops now exist all over the world, and they share an interactive dialogue with community and advocate strongly for community involvement in research (Mulder & De Bok, 2006). In all models, research findings or results are given back to the community that initiated the question in order to achieve the best impact and lead to action. Based on the science shop model and results of a comprehensive study of the effect of service-learning on community organizations (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009), the University of Wisconsin–Madison initiated a program named the Community-University Exchange (CUE) in 2010. CUE operates as an interdisciplinary hub for streamlined access to resources of the local university, and facilitation for various departments and disciplines to “plug into” projects and avoid duplication or research fatigue in the community. CUE conducted a developmental evaluation of its pilot program to determine immediate outcomes from its first three years of operation. This evaluation included interviews with community leaders as well as students and instructors in the course. Emerging metrics from the work done to date include • achievement of community goals in the short, medium, and long term; • development and strength of relationship between the university and the community; and • identification of effective strategies in achieving community impact.
The CUE evaluation addresses the concerns put forth by Stoecker et al. (2010) by supporting community outcomes in these areas: 1. Articulating research and clear community goals at the partnership’s outset.
2. Creating mechanisms to report on progress through newsletters, websites, and presentations. 3. Building an infrastructure that supports community impact evaluations and metrics. 4. Providing a mechanism to connect projects that share a common community partner and to institutionalize those partnerships.
These outcomes speak to the capacity-building role that academic partners can play in community organizations, and validate Stoecker et al.’s (2010) assertions that academic engagement should support institutional changes. The CUE structure has the ability to maintain a long-term memory of the history of partnerships that can be incorporated into the evaluation so that it not only addresses one specific project but can also assess the aggregate impact of multiple campus partnerships.
Future Directions and Suggestions for Further Research While CBL has a long history of positive outcomes for students, it is critical to expand the focus to include assessing CBL impacts on community partners, in order to realize positive community goals. Evaluating community impact will hopefully lead to an iterative improvement in project design to become more collaborative. This shift will call for rethinking what it means to do CBL projects that are authentically focused on community-oriented work and the skills it requires. Faculty undergo a tremendous amount of training to become proficient in their discipline, but if they do not have professional development opportunities to acquire the skills for improving community partner impacts, the ability to work with “real” people will be weakened and undermined. This work continues to be challenging, but worth the effort. More research is required to tease out ways to measure impact, moving toward balancing academic agendas with community priorities. CBL projects that are not equitable in regard to their impact on the community can become more burdensome than beneficial, thus creating a real danger of a dialectical feedback loop (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009)—that is, situations where a long-cherished community-university relationship ends due to too many negative or flat outcomes, and community organizations choose to spend their scant resources of time and energy on other endeavors to meet their own mission goals. The authors have experience that illustrates this point. Community-based research in a hard-hit area of New Orleans suggests that academic partnerships after Hurricane Katrina, particularly those that involved research, have discouraged the community because
27. The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Community-Based Learning Partnerships to Evaluate Community Impacts–•–197
academics prioritize their own project goals over community needs. This behavior, coupled with a lack of followthrough with research results, leaves the community feeling “misused and abused.” Already, some community leaders have decided not to pursue new academic partnerships because they concluded the benefits were not worth the time investment. By following the simple precepts of bringing stakeholders to the table and listening to them there, taking cues from their priorities, and creating clear goals at the beginning of projects, CBL can achieve greater community impact over the long haul. CBL partnerships should be encouraged to develop their own evaluation models and metrics that the stakeholders feel ownership in, to ensure that individual partnerships and projects achieve the goals set out by the community. Community impacts would become a standard way to measure the success of CBL projects. And this is a win-win proposal for universities as well. In addition to creating better impact in the community, attention to this aspect of CBL pays benefits to student learning outcomes (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). When CBL is done against a backdrop of ongoing community impact evaluation, the authentic knowledge and information gained by students will enhance their ability to navigate a fast-changing world.
Resources
References and Further Readings
Brown, P. (2004). Who is the community?/What is the community. Retrieved from http://www.brown.edu/ research/research-ethics/who-communitywhat-community Buchanan, D. R., Miller, F. G., & Wallerstein, N. (2007). Ethical issues in community-based participatory research: Balancing rigorous research with community participation in community intervention studies. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 1(2), 153–160. Bushouse, B. K. (2005). Community nonprofit organizations and service-learning: Resource constraints to building partnerships with universities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1) 32–40. Chen, Y. W., Milstein, T., Anguiano, C., Sandoval, J., & Knudsen, L. (2012). Challenges and benefits of community-based participatory research for environmental justice: A case of collaboratively examining ecocultural struggles. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 6(3), 403–421. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., Senor, B., Huq, J., & Morrison, M. (2010). Differentiating and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitative, transactional, or transformational. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 5–22. Clarke, M. (2003). Finding the community in service-learning research: The 3-’I’ model. In J. Eyler & S. H. Billig (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts (pp. 125–146). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Ahmed, S. M., Beck, B., Maurana, C. A., & Newton. G. (2004). Overcoming barriers to effective community-based participatory research in US medical schools. Education for Health, 17(2), 141–151. Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251–263. Beckman, M., Penney, N., & Cockburn, B. (2011). Maximizing the impact of community-based research. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(2), 83–104. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/ index.php/jheoe/article/view/538 Blouin, D. D., & Perry, E. M. (2009). Whom does service learning really serve? Community-based organizations’ perspectives on service learning. Teaching Sociology, 37(2), 120–135. Retrieved from http://tso.sagepub.com/content/37/2/120.short Brescia, W., Mullins, C., & Miller, M. (2009). Project-based service-learning in an instructional technology graduate program. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1–12. Retrieved from http:// www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl Brown, P., Morello-Frosch, R., Brody, J. G., Altman, R. G., Rudel, R. A., Senier, L., . . . & Simpson, R. (2010). Institutional review board challenges related to communitybased participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: A case study. Environmental Health, 9(39), 1–12.
Science shop model and practices for better impact of community-based research: Center for Urban Research and Learning at Loyola University–Chicago, www.luc.edu/curl One of the longest-running science shop models in the United States; its website contains much useful material. Community-University Exchange (CUE), http://cue .morgridge.wisc.edu CUE is the newest science shop in the Midwest. Some ideas for project organization and professional development for faculty and graduate students are on its website. Living Knowledge Network, www.livingknowledge.org Living Knowledge Network is the international umbrella for over 100 science shops around the globe. Trent Centre for Community-Based Education, www.trentcentre.ca A hybrid model science shop in Ontario with years of experience and resources online.
198–•–IV. COMMUNITY Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. E. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 28–34. Driscoll, A., Holland, B. A., Gelmon, S. B., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1), 66–71. Hohmann, A. A., & Shear, M. K. (2002). Community-based intervention research: Coping with the “noise” of real life in study design. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(2), 201–207. Horowitz, C. R., Robinson, M., & Seifer, S. (2009). Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: Are researchers prepared? Circulation, 119(19), 2633–2642. Israel, B. A., Krieger, J., Vlahov, D., Ciske, S., Foley, M., Fortin, P., . . . & Tang, G. (2006). Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: Lessons learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle Urban Research Centers. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 83(6), 1022–1040. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202. Lantz, P. M., Viruell-Fuentes, E., Israel, B. A., Softley, D., & Guzman, R. (2001). Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based participatory research partnership in Detroit. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 78(3), 495–507. Maternowski, K. (Interviewer), Stoecker, R. (Interviewee), & Tryon, E. (Interviewee). (2009). The unheard voices [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed website: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/04/ serviceqa McCallister, L. A. (2008). Lessons learned while developing a community-based learning initiative. Journal for Civic Commitment, 11, 1–8. Mulder, H., & De Bok, C. (2006). Science shops as universitycommunity interfaces: An interactive approach in science communication. In D. Cheng, J. Metcalfe, & B. Schiele (Eds.), At the human scale: International practices in science communication (pp. 285–304). Beijing, China: Science Press. O’Keefe, E., & Hogg, C. (1999). Public participation and marginalized groups: The community development model. Health Expectations, 2(4), 245–254. Preiser-Houy, L., & Navarrete, C. J. (2010). Benefits and challenges of using community-based research to develop an educational Web portal. Proceedings of 2010 Information Systems Educators Conference, v27, n1303, 1–9. Retrieved from http://proc.isecon.org/2010/pdf/1303.pdf Reeb, R. N., & Folger, S. F. (2013). Community outcomes in service learning: Research and practice from a systems theory perspective. In P. H. Clayton, R. G. Bringle, & J. A. Hatcher (Eds.), Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Communities, institutions, and partnerships. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Ruch-Ross, H., Keller, D., Miller, N., Bassewitz, J., & Melinkovich, P. (2008). Evaluation of community-based health projects: The healthy tomorrows experience. Pediatrics, 122(3), 564–572. Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30–43. Steinhaus, N. (n.d.). About living knowledge –The international science shop network. Retrieved from http://www .scienceshops.org Stoecker, R. (2005). Research methods for community change: A project-based approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stoecker, R., & Beckman, M. (2009). Making higher education civic engagement matter in the community. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ Making-Higher-Ed-Work.pdf Stoecker, R., Beckman, M., & Min, B. H. (2010). Evaluating the community impact of higher education civic engagement. In H. E. Fitzgerald, D. L. Zimmerman, C. Burack, & S. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: The contemporary landscape, Vol. 2: Community-campus partnerships (2nd ed.). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. (Eds.). (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Strage, A. A. (2000). Service-learning: Enhancing student learning outcomes in a college-level lecture course. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 5–13. Strand, K. J., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., Marullo, S., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tryon, E., & Steinhaus, N. (in press). Rewards and challenges in globally engaged research. In M. Beckman & J. Long (Eds.), Community-based research for faculty. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323. Walsh, K. C. (2012). The distance from public institutions of higher education [WISCAPE working paper]. Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530019.pdf Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning: Moving from doing for to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 767–780. Retrieved from http://abs.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/cgi/ reprint/43/5/767 Ward, S. (2000). Transforming the instructor: Service-learning integrated into a community college curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 24–28. Weiler, L., Haddock, S., Zimmerman, T. S., Krafchick, J., Henry, K., & Rudisill, S. (2013). Benefits derived by college students from mentoring at-risk youth in a service-learning course. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(3/4), 236–248.
PART V BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
28 GETTING BEYOND SERVICE-LEARNING MYTHS IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION JASON C. SENJEM St. Ambrose University
T
his chapter discusses why scholars have proposed service-learning and civic engagement (SL/CE) as critical to the future of management education. In addition, the major myths educators have about SL/CE in management courses are addressed. Finally, the conceptual frameworks are described to help management educators overcome the challenges of creating and improving service-learning courses in management.
Challenges to Management Education Scholars have criticized business education for being too narrow in its focus resulting in lack of emphasis on the big picture, superficial problem solving, a negative view of human nature, and a weak moral foundation (Godfrey, Illes, & Berry, 2005). One of the biggest challenges to management education is its narrowness in terms of its focus on functional areas, analytical tools, the transactional view, and shareholder wealth (Godfrey et al., 2005). Since courses are built around functional areas such as human resources, marketing, operations, finance, and accounting, much of learning is focused on the details within a functional area and not the complex interdependencies that we see in business daily. Sara Rynes, Christine Trank, Anne Lawson, and Remus Ilies (2003) found that 78% of recruiters preferred business students that had behavioral skills that went beyond the typical functional business areas. Unfortunately, management educators typically do not design coursework that takes into consideration the development of broader mindsets so that students can provide more useful and relevant skills in the workforce (Mintzberg & Gosling, 2002; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
A related issue involves educators relying too much on cases where students solve problems without a thorough analysis based on management theory and research (Trank & Rynes, 2003). The result is disrespect for theory and a focus on management fads that leads managers to look for an easy fix rather than longer term solutions. Managers then are dumbfounded when confronted with complex issues that do not fit the formula (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). Management researchers and educators have undergone some self-examination in the last decade about what influence they may have had in contributing to the unethical conduct we have witnessed in the business world from the likes of Enron and WorldCom and in the financial meltdown of 2008. Some of the greatest criticism has come from the late Sumantra Ghoshal (2005) at the London Business School. He made the arguments that our adoption of a scientific approach to management has left ethical considerations aside and that our dominant theories tend to have a negative view of people. Consequently, applying theory and research to practice tends to create a self-fulfilling effect such that we tend to leave ethical considerations aside and adopt management practices that focus on eliminating the negative aspects of people in the workplace rather than build on the positive strengths. The mere language and assumptions we use, especially regarding a transactional and shareholder-centered focus, become taken for granted (Ferraro, Pfeffer, & Sutton, 2005). For example, a theory that deals with the transaction costs of an organization assumes that people will behave opportunistically. In turn, a manager applying this concept may design close monitoring and control systems to avoid the transaction costs of opportunistic behavior. Feeling justified by these assumptions that this is the way the world 201
202–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
works, managers ignore the moral implications about the exercise of power and control over human beings in a free society. A part of the solution to these challenges involves SL/CE or service-learning “creating opportunities for students to apply theory they learn in the classroom to real-world problems and real-world needs” (KenworthyU’Ren & Peterson, 2005, p. 272). Indeed, SL/CE, when used thoughtfully, can help get away from the narrowness in management education by creating reality, reflection, reciprocity, and responsibility (Godfrey et al., 2005). This can come through putting students in a real-world situation where they must deal with interdependent complexities such as real stakeholders who demand their time and attention as well as deal with moral issues like social justice and human dignity (Andrews, 2007). SL/CE also provides opportunity for reflecting which deepens a student’s understanding and allows for internalizing their experience so that students may change their thoughts and behaviors for future situations (Salimbene, Buono, Van Steenberg La Farge, & Nurick, 2005). SL/CE establishes relationships and partnerships that are reciprocal in nature rather than unilaterally transactional, which allows students to broaden their idea of human interaction in the business world. Finally, SL/CE stimulates a sense of citizenship or responsibility to the community (Dipadova-Stocks, 2005; Giles & Eyler, 1994). In a meta-analysis of 40 studies involving 5,454 subjects, Patrick Yorio and Feifei Ye (2012) found that service-learning positively influenced students’ understanding of social issues, their perception of self, and their cognitive development in both business and nonbusiness courses. This suggests a course to follow for students to learn a broader view of what management is about (Mirvis, 2008; Starkey & Tempest, 2009).
Service-Learning Myths in Management Education Even after considering what is at stake with management education challenges and understanding that SL/CE can be a big part of meeting those challenges, professors, and teachers can find it difficult to consider adopting this different pedagogy. Teachers may not want to take away time from other important duties like publishing and professional service. Teachers using SL/CE may run into a learning curve that can seem pretty steep, the classes may seem a bit daunting to students, and students are pushed outside their comfort zone. Three of the biggest problems teachers find with incorporating SL/CE are the following. First, students have a hard time applying any “business” skills when they are doing service. When doing something in a new way, students may have preconceived notions about what is business and what is service; it is common for teachers to hear this way of thinking. However, this complaint is a myth
because there are many ways to incorporate business or management skills into the projects students do. As with anything a teacher introduces, it must be explained and the reason for doing it must be clear. Second, there is nothing tangible or course relevant to grade when doing service. This complaint assumes that service is all touchy-feely or doing good. This problem is compounded by a tendency for students to disregard management coursework as mere common sense or intangible and unimportant to their career success (Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Ilies, 2003). However, this is a myth because there are some very traditional ways to grade outcomes from SL/CE as well as practices that allow a deeper understanding of topics. Lastly, service takes time away from all the content that needs to be covered. This is a common complaint heard when educators frame SL/CE as an additional thing to cover rather than as an alternative way of teaching. SL/CE as a process can better deliver traditional content to students as well as provide value to other stakeholders such as employers and project supervisors (Lester, Tomkovik, Wells, Flunker, & Kickul, 2005).
Service-Learning Conceptual Models as Solutions As a start, to get beyond the myths of SL/CE, management educators can adopt one of the following conceptual models for course design: immersive model, student-directed model, or research model. These models are ways of thinking about delivering an effective SL/CE course while addressing some of the biggest roadblocks in adopting this pedagogy. The models are explained and examples from each are described.
Immersive Model This model relies on learning theory to organize all aspects and deliverables of the course, allows students to take ownership of this learning, and connects student interactions in the project and throughout the course to management theories. An example of this type of teaching is with students in an organizational behavior class. The instructor introduces students to Kolb’s (1984) learning theory providing the basis for the structure of papers and assignments throughout the semester as well as for an SL/CE project. The learning theory starts with a concrete experience, such as an SL/CE project, a classroom role-play, or an event from the student’s past. Students then engage in reflective observation, which is describing the experience from one’s own perspective as well as from others’ perspectives. Then students draw on management models and theories during abstract conceptualization to make sense of why things happened as they did. Finally, in the active experimentation phase, students take
28. Getting Beyond Service-Learning Myths in Management Education–•–203
what they learned of their own behavior given the situation and what they know from management theory and they craft their future behavior if a similar situation were to occur. There are examples of grading assignments and rubrics for an organizational behavior class using this learning theory in a textbook by Joyce Osland, David Kolb, Irwin Rubin, and Marlene Turner (2007) as well as in the annotated resources section of this chapter. The following example of a concrete experience from an academic service-learning project was used in an organizational behavior class. The class partnered with a student cocurricular organization, a local nonprofit, and a national home improvement store that provided a $1,200 grant to build four raised garden beds. The garden beds would allow individuals with disabilities residing in the local neighborhood to participate in gardening in their new community garden. To accomplish this, over the course of a semester, five classroom task teams worked with the local nonprofit to create a mission statement for the community garden, to perform a needs assessment of disabled community members, and to research ADA requirements for building and placement of the garden beds. The students created a proposal for the raised beds that they presented to the city parks committee and the city council for approval. After acquiring the building materials from the partner home improvement store, they constructed the four raised beds to be transported to the community garden and then developed community awareness of the newly acquired accessibility of the community garden through fliers and electronic communication. Through these efforts,
Sidebar 28.1
the students empowered the disabled residents to participate in their community and produce a season’s worth of healthy, inexpensive vegetables. Academically, the students learned how to work with multiple stakeholders and as an effective team while reflecting on their civic responsibility. Through class discussion and a personal application assignment paper they drew on their shared experience with the community garden project to understand the management concepts of teamwork, communication, and leadership that were studied in class. This model can be very effective for dealing with grading, creating management relevancy, and being able to cover content. However, this style of teaching and learning in the classroom does still involve major investments of time to (a) adopt the learning model method, (b) connect with a community partner, (c) plan meeting times outside of class, and (d) apply for grant money. A suggestion to overcome these obstacles would be to adopt these over time. For example, teachers could become familiar with the learning model for a project paper in one semester and add an additional aspect for each subsequent semester until fully immersed.
Student-Directed Model This model aims to prepare student teams for the SL/CE experience then allows teams to choose their project and make decisions on implementation details. This example of incorporating experiential learning comes from a Foundations of Management class (see Sidebar 28.1).
Knight Owl Project Grading Sheet
Team: Project Title: Date: Please bear these grading criteria in mind as you complete your project. PLANNING PROPOSAL —15 Points • Does the proposal contain a clear title, date, and team information? (2 points) • Does it contain partner information? (2 points) • Does it contain a summary and justification (how does your plan fit with SNC partner mission, KnightLife mission, BUAD 230 goals, AND does it address one of the following: school spirit, campus diversity, intellectual growth, artistic growth)? (2 points) • Does it contain 4 SMART team goals addressing team process, event outcomes, and stakeholder outcomes? (4 points) • Does it contain a marketing plan, staffing plan, and assessment plan? (3 points) • Does it contain budget information? (1 point) • Does it contain a project planning time schedule? (1 point) • If changes to the proposal were made, were they sent in an updated proposal to the professor? (2 points) (Continued)
204–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
Sidebar 28.1
Continued
PROPOSAL PRESENTATION —5 Points • Did you stay within the five-minute time limit? (1 point) • Did you make an attempt to convince us that your event is going to achieve what you say it will achieve? (2 points) • Did you present professionally? (2 points) POST-EVENT PRESENTATION —20 Points • Did you take the project seriously and was presentation clear, articulate, and informative? (5 points) • Did you demonstrate an impact for your partner(s) and for one of the following: school spirit, campus diversity, intellectual growth, artistic growth? (5 points) • Through reflection, did you connect what you did in the project to what you learned in class? (5 points) • Did you show creativity in programming, dealing with problems, and managing your team? (5 points) REPORTS —10 Points • Did you complete a group report from the Unpacking the Knight Owl Workshop? (2 points) • Did you complete the report for the cash register, clean up, and attend training? (3 points) • Did you complete the report on Moodle? (2 points) • Did you collect all your peer evaluations in an envelope to hand in with your team name and section? (1 point) • Did you make a poster to be presented on April 28 and identify a representative to attend? (2 points) • TOTAL (Out of 50 points) Source: Senjem Materials for Foundations of Management.
Students were prepared early in the semester to run a real business, the Knight Owl, a student-built late-night music venue. The teacher helped mentor student teams that took turns planning, organizing, budgeting, and marketing events at the Knight Owl. Student teams presented business proposals and then took the reins to try to earn money at their Knight Owl event to donate to campus groups or local charities. Through this experiential learning, students developed management skills and learned the positive power of business. After the events were run, students reflected back on their experience through an unpacking workshop focusing on their interpersonal (Share an example of how this experience improved your communication skills with others.), problem solving (How did you have to adjust to an obstacle you faced during this project?), behavioral (Share an example of how you took initiative to achieve a greater result.), teamwork (How did you best contribute to the group?), self-awareness (What did you learn about yourself as a result of the MBTI?), and leadership skills (How were you able to build trust with those you worked with?). In this teacher-led reflection, the teacher first asks for a volunteer to serve as an example and creates a dialogue with this student asking basic questions about what the student did during the project. The class is instructed to take note of all the skills the student mentions or implies during this dialogue. The teacher then solicits input from the class on what skills the student volunteer used during
the project, which results in the class learning that it is easy to identify a number of skills in just a few minutes of talking about the project. Students then developed a list of skills in groups and converted these skills to written bullet points for their resumes and to written talking points for internship and job interviews. The benefits of this model are that students get to make choices about their project, which gives them a sense of empowerment in creating their own legacy at the college. It also empowers them to take a career focus and develop skills of their choice. The biggest challenges in this model include the need to build trust with their team, the uncertainty students feel in being able to complete or be successful in the task, and the lack of control felt by the professor. To deal with these obstacles it is important to provide several weeks of preparation working in teams with the professor’s guidance so that students develop realistic expectations of roles within the group and feel some competence in the tasks they are doing, and the professor is informed of student progress so that changes can be made and assistance given if needed.
Research Model This model uses discovery and experimentation to create understanding and sharing. An example of an academic service-learning course using this model involves students in a sustainable business course who created an
28. Getting Beyond Service-Learning Myths in Management Education–•–205
Sidebar 28.2
Sustainable Business Project Guidelines
You will each create a sustainable project proposal that you will submit November 3 for feedback and resubmit November 24 to the Campus Environmental Sustainability Committee. Our college has signed the American College & University President’s Climate Commitment, which is an agreement to incorporate climate change and sustainability into the educational experience of all students and to achieve climate neutrality at the earliest possible date. The Environmental Sustainability Committee is charged with the task of proposing a plan to achieve this. Your assignment will contribute to this plan. Please structure your proposal according to the sections below and use the appropriate headings. Limit your proposal to a maximum of 1500 words (about six typed pages) including the project budget and references. 1. Topic overview: Provide a brief overview of the sustainability category you are addressing. Briefly describe what SNC is currently doing within this category and compare with peer institutions, aspirant institutions, and the broader group of organizations. This should be a maximum of 750 words (about three typed pages). 2. Statement of need/opportunity: Explain the need or opportunity that is causing you to take the action proposed in this proposal. 3. Objectives: In terms of the broad benefit to the College, articulate what you hope to achieve with this proposal. This should not be a review of the proposed activities of the college, but rather a discussion on how implementing this proposal will improve the quality of life at our College. 4. Program/Activities: Highlight the proposed actions of your organization that are designed to achieve the objectives articulated above. Also provide a schedule of events or timetable for your actions. 5. Evaluation: Explain how you will measure your progress toward achieving the objectives articulated above. 6. Project budget: Provide a budget for your proposed activities, indicating from where you will get funds. You do not need to itemize every expenditure. Broad budget categories will suffice. Include a listing and the status of any other grant or funding requests related to this proposal. We will have a research workshop in the library September 17 and again October 22 for guidance in finding sources and structuring your papers. Part of your research will involve conducting one or more interviews with decision makers in your topic category on campus. You will each choose one of the following categories on which to focus your proposal: • • • • • • • • • •
Energy conservation Alternative energy generation Purchasing, offsets, and renewable energy purchases Transportation Food and water Waste and recycling Grounds Green building Education (curricular, co-curricular, and cultural) Community outreach (alumni, locally, regionally, nationally, sister cities)
Source: Senjem Materials for Sustainable Business.
environmentally sustainable project to propose to the campus Environmental Sustainability Committee based on research and information gathered from weekly field trips to local businesses. The students then created a sustainability workshop based on what they learned and conducted the workshop at two local high schools. Students went on weekly field trips to gather research on sustainability practices used at local organizations such as an organic grocery, a pizzeria, a health-care organization, a
hospital, an organic farm, the local utility, an environmental consulting company, the local recycling center, and a wind farm. An example of the paper proposal assignment can be found in Sidebar 28.2. Students did peer-review feedback and also received feedback from a grant writer who gave them examples (Miner & Miner, 2003). The primary benefit of this model is that it gives students a chance to gather their own data to apply to management issues, which makes management more relevant to
206–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
them (Rousseau, 2006). Another benefit is that students begin to understand the legitimacy of the management concepts they are studying. Grading should not provide an obstacle as the model is traditional and can involve a proposal, a presentation to a community partner, or a research paper. The main challenge with this method is making sure students have at least a basic understanding of research. This can take some extra time in class but creating partnerships with the library staff and incorporating this as part of an evidence-based management approach can help the class be more productive (Erez & Grant, 2014).
Conclusion and Implications All of the experiences are able to be applied to the real world as well as the workplace in the future to help me not only academically but also in my career preparation . . . they help me realize that the knowledge I have gained through this course can actually be applied to the real world and are relevant to the things I will need to know in the future. (Student, Foundations of Management)
As emphasized by this comment, SL/CE projects can connect with students and leave them with a broader sense of what management is all about. As with any teaching style though, it must be executed well in order for results to be effective. With that in mind, in each of these models to facilitate SL/CE, a general process called PARE, based on Kolb’s (1984) learning theory is used to engage students. PARE stands for the stages the teacher uses to plan a service-learning project: Preparation, Action, Reflection, and Evaluation. The teacher prepares students by setting up their teams, conducting team building activities, and introducing them to their community and campus partners. The action stage involves teacher guidance of their projects as the students work to achieve the goals of the project. The teacher assigns students a method of reflection (such as term papers, presentations, journals, and unpacking workshops) so that students can assess the process, use critical thinking, challenge their assumptions, and show an awareness of issues. Finally, an evaluation is conducted determining whether goals were met and to get feedback from students as well as partners for design and implementation. One benefit of the PARE model is that it can be useful for making improvements from semester to semester. Another benefit is that it fits with the idea of contemplative action as the teacher helps students act in community and then reflect on that action to develop themselves into contributors to society or the common good. Furthermore, the PARE model brings a subjective component to the management classroom that contrasts with the typical objective case analysis. The subjective component fosters a deeper understanding of how the experience has affected and changed the student. The primary challenge is knowing how much preparation students need and how much guidance they will need along the way. The good thing is that just being aware that students need preparation and the
chance to reflect on their experience will help provide a great start for any management educator who is just beginning to adopt SL/CE.
Resources Academy of Management Division of Management Education and Development, http://division .aomonline.org/med This is the official division of the Academy of Management that promotes scholarship in management education, including instructional design, learning theory applications, and the evaluation of teaching practices. The division supports professional development workshops, symposiums, and research presentations at the annual Academy of Management Conference in August. Bentley Service-Learning Center, www.bentley.edu/ centers/service-learning-center This site gives examples of how the service-learning center supports programs of university-community partnerships where students can interact with people from diverse backgrounds and develop the management skills they need once they graduate. Enactus, www.enactusunitedstates.org The purpose of Enactus (formerly SIFE) is “to enable progress through entrepreneurial action.” It is an international student organization that conducts community outreach projects by partnering with campuses and business leaders. Enactus is in 38 countries and in the United States alone, it has over 500 active universities representing 21,000 students. OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators, www.obts.org The OBTS (Organizational Behavior Teaching Society) Teaching Society for Management Educators provides teaching resources through workshops, webinars, conferences, and an associated journal, Journal of Management Education. Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), http://unprme.org This is a website promoting six principles for responsible management education. This was developed out of the United Nations Global Compact and a task force of 60 business school leaders from around the world and is endorsed by several institutions including the business school accrediting body AASCB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business). The principles include practices such as partnership with businesses, government, and other stakeholders for meeting social and environmental challenges in society.
28. Getting Beyond Service-Learning Myths in Management Education–•–207
References and Further Readings Andrews, C. P. (2007). Service learning: Applications and research in business. Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 19–26. Brower, H. H. (2011). Sustainable development through servicelearning: A pedagogical framework and case example in a third world context. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 58–76. Dipadova-Stocks, L. N. (2005). Two major concerns about service-learning: What if we don’t do it? And what if we do? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(3), 345–353. Erez, A., & Grant, A. M. (2014). Separating data from intuition: Bringing evidence into the management classroom. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 104–113. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become selffulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24. Flannery, B. L., Pragman, C. H. (2010). Service-learning and integrated course redesign: Principles of management and the Campus Kitchen metaproject. Journal of Management Education, 34(1), 11–38. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91. Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on students’ personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17(4), 327–339. Godfrey, P. C., Illes, L. M., & Berry, G. R. (2005). Creating breadth in business education through service-learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 309–323. Kenworthy, Amy L. (2010). Service-learning and negotiation: An educational “win-win.” Journal of Management Education, 34(1), 62–87. Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. L., & Peterson, T. O. (2005). Servicelearning and management education: Introducing the “WE CARE” approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 272–277. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lester, S. W., Tomkovick, C., Wells, T., Flunker, L., & Kickul, J. (2005). Does service-learning add value? Examining the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 278–294. Madsen, S. R., & Turnbull, O. (2006). Academic service learning experiences of compensation and benefit course students. Journal of Management Education, 30, 724–742. McKay, V. C., & Rozee, P. D. (2004, Spring). Characteristics of faculty who adopt community service-learning pedagogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 19, 21–33.
Miner, L. E., & Miner, J. T. (2003). Proposal planning & writing (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managers beyond borders. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 64–76. Mirvis, P. (2008). Executive development through consciousness-raising experiences. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2), 173–188. Osland, J. S., Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & Turner, M. E. (2007). Organizational behavior: An experiential approach (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Papamarcos, S. D. (2005). Giving traction to management theory: Today’s service-learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(3), 325–335. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78–95. Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders through international servicelearning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 237–260. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidencebased management”? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256–269. Rynes, S. L., Trank, C. Q., Lawson, A. M., & Ilies, R. (2003). Behavioral coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 269–283. Salimbene, F. P., Buono, A. F., Van Steenberg La Farge, V., & Nurick, A. J. (2005). Service-learning and management education: The Bentley experience. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 336–344. Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2009). The winter of out discontent: The design challenge for business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 576–586. Steiner, S. D., & Watson, M. A. (2006). The service learning component in business education: The values linkage void. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 422–434. Taylor, M. L. (2005). A service-learning kaleidoscope of insights: Conversations with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, theorist/systems change artist; Bernard Milano, practitioner/foundation leader; and John Saltmarsh, historian/service-learning educator. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 363–376. Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(2), 189–205. Wallace, L. M. (2005). A librarian’s guide to service-learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 385–390. 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.
29 BITS A College-Library Partnership JOHN SHEPHERD
ALLAN WILSON
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
University of Northern British Columbia
I
n early 2006, a college instructor, at the request of the chief librarian, initiated the first of eight service-learning projects in the city of Prince George, British Columbia (BC). Over the next four years, 29 accounting diploma students participated in community-based learning projects with the Prince George Public Library and Prince George Airport Authority. The projects assisted the public library in accessing over $300,000 in municipal funding and attracted interest from public libraries outside the community. One project was featured in a library journal article and presented at the 2009 BC Library Association Conference, while another was published as a business case study. Six students received $5,000 university scholarships as a result of their community engagement work, and two were hired by the sponsoring organizations. This chapter focuses on four of the Prince George Public Library service-learning projects, starting with the first author’s background in community economic development and service-learning prior to the Prince George experience. Following a summary of the service-learning literature in the field of accounting education, the servicelearning projects are described along with the lessons learned.
Background and History In 1994, the first author, after five years of experience in rural community economic development, moved to the fishing and port community of Prince Rupert, 40 miles
south of the Alaska Panhandle, and joined the business faculty of Northwest Community College (NWCC). The college offers a two-year business diploma program with a single student cohort and two full-time instructors. The first author’s prior work in community development led to the creation of a new college course titled MGMT 260—Applied Management Studies. If a group of students wanted to engage in a community project in the community, they could approach an instructor with their idea. When the students had a local sponsor (community partner) and the proposal seemed feasible, a course section was created and students were assigned a faculty mentor. Student community projects included a community profile for the Prince Rupert Economic Development Commission, a visitors’ survey for the Prince Rupert Tourism Association, a feasibility study for a First Nations Elders Lodge, and an income tax preparation service for college students. One of the more successful projects was the initiative of a single student. Her desire to start a shellfish farming industry motivated her to prepare a feasibility study for a shellfish biotoxin testing service for the Pacific North Coast. The result was a highly detailed report, with details on the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program, maps of proposed shellfish collection sites, and scenarios based on different funding levels. As the seafood development coordinator at the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District, she applied for funding to start a pilot project, which led to the formation of the communityrun North Coast Water Quality & Biotoxin Program Society. 209
210–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
As a trustee of the Prince Rupert Public Library, the first author worked with the second author, Allan Wilson, on a number of library projects. In January 2004, Wilson was hired as the new chief librarian of the much larger Prince George Public Library. The chief librarian’s task was to set a new direction for a library plagued by years of underfunding and obsolescent computer systems. He intended to replace the library’s 26-year-old automation system, the computerized version of a card catalogue. The first step in replacing the automation system was the completion of a business analysis study to determine the library’s information needs and the specifications for a new system. After the business analysis was complete, the library’s management team could submit a funding proposal to the City of Prince George. Unfortunately, the library could not locate a qualified local consultant to prepare the business analysis study. Wilson posed this question: “Could college students perform a business analysis study with the assistance of college and library staff?” This question eventually led to the first servicelearning collaboration with the Prince George Public Library.
Literature Review Service-learning has been described as a recent addition to accounting programs (Andrews, 2007) and the accounting academic literature (Rama, Ravenscroft, Wolcott, & Zlotkowski, 2000). A review of the accounting course descriptions on eight BC university websites suggests a limited presence of service-learning within undergraduate accounting programs in the province. Service-learning is mentioned in two courses in not-for-profit management. It is possible that courses with titles such as internship, directed studies, independent studies, applied studies, or research seminars could include a service-learning component, though none was specifically listed. University of British Columbia’s (UBC) Sauder School of the Business does have a Community-Based Experiential Learning (CBEL) option as an elective for undergraduate and graduate business students. Several barriers to the adoption of service-learning within accounting and finance programs have been proposed, including steep learning curves and the need to align curriculum to professional exams (Andrews, 2007). Accounting has an extensive body of knowledge that students must learn before they are useful. Professional associations specify curriculum in depth and transfer agreements with these organizations are key to the credibility of accounting programs. A number of best practices are suggested in the literature. One theme is the role of faculty in service-learning projects. The need for faculty to build relationships and regularly collaborate with community partners is viewed as a success factor (Gujarathi & McQuade, 2002). Faculty
should study the community agency and ensure alignment of service-learning projects with learning objectives (Hoxmeier & Lenk, 2003). The need for multiparty communication is another theme. Ongoing three-way communications among the students, faculty, and project sponsor is viewed a prerequisite for success according to Elizabeth Wilcox and Ilze Zigurs (2003), and the direct involvement of faculty, along with the existence of enthusiastic project partners, facilitates the flow of information between the parties. Project management methodology has been successfully used in information technology service-learning projects (Hoxmeier & Lenk, 2003). A key milestone in project management is the preparation of a scope statement. The commitment of sponsoring organizations to such scope statements has been identified as a best practice (Hoxmeier & Lenk, 2003). The need for student reflection and feedback is another theme in the literature (Hoxmeier & Lenk, 2003). In a management accounting class, student teams submitted a series of four written assignments followed by class presentations at the end of the semester (Chiang, 2008). Various tools have been used to encourage student reflection, including reflective journals (Govekar & Rishi, 2007), weekly progress reports (Hoxmeier & Lenk, 2003) and short presentations (Gujarathi & McQuade, 2002; Still & Clayton, 2004). Detailed rubrics have been used to evaluate student projects in audit and government/nonprofit courses (Still & Clayton, 2004). A particularly useful article involved use of servicelearning in an intermediate accounting course (Gujarathi & McQuade, 2002). The authors stressed the need to invest time in identifying suitable projects and in upfront planning. For students who expressed an interest in participating, a lottery was used to select the “winners.” Class presentations and completion of a service-learning report encouraged student reflection on their experiences.
Community Learning Projects in Practice Business Analysis Project In September 2005, the chief librarian of the City of Prince George, Allan Wilson, asked whether second-year accounting students could undertake a business analysis study, and, if so, how such a project could be undertaken. To answer these questions, the first author consulted with the college’s Computer Information Systems (CIS) faculty. A CIS faculty member thought that students could perform such a project under supervision. All the accounting students completed a business information systems (CIS 165) course that provided them with a theoretical knowledge of the business analysis process. What the students lacked was the experience of applying that knowledge to an actual organization. The library’s systems
29. BITS–•–211
were not particularly complicated (e.g., few receivables, outsourced payroll), which limited the scope of the study. The CIS faculty member recommended a textbook on information systems project management (Schwalbe, 2006) that outlined a clear, step-by-step process, using a threaded case study as a concrete example. Samples of planning documents and downloadable report templates were available on the textbook’s website. After a discussion with the chief librarian, it was apparent that the first author and library’s technical staff could jointly supervise the students. As a service-learning course did not exist, the study was incorporated as an optional project within the ACC 269 course, Computerized Accounting 2, which the first author was scheduled to teach in January 2006. The course included a major project work comprising 30% of the final grade. On the first day of class in January, the chief librarian briefly described the project to the students. Subsequently, students attended a follow-up information session and tour of the library. The students agreed to meet weekly with the chief librarian and the first author as members of a working group. Following the steps outlined in the textbook, the team prepared a project charter that defined the objectives and scope of the project (see Appendix A). The students, the chief librarian, and the first author signed the charter. Using the terminology of Glenn Harris (2004), the study followed the research seminars model. Unlike community-based independent studies, students worked directly with a faculty member to address a specific problem proposed by the community partner, in this case, the Prince George Public Library. The involvement and enthusiasm of the chief librarian set the tone. He enjoyed working with the students, treated them as equals, and helped them obtain scholarships and jobs after graduation. At the weekly meetings, problems were discussed, solutions identified, and decisions made. No one left a meeting without a task to perform for next week. During the project, students studied the library’s accounting, fund-raising, and materials acquisition and circulation computer systems. They collected samples of paper reports, observed employees at work, and mapped organizational processes. Pairs of students interviewed over a dozen library employees, with their instructor attending the first interviews as an observer. Student interviewers emphasized the confidential nature of the dialogues and encouraged employees to speak candidly. No minutes were released until the interviewees approved them. Their report documented several risks associated with the existing system and stressed the need to replace it as soon as possible. The study contained much of the background needed by the library staff to prepare a business case. In 2007, the library presented a funding request to the City of Prince George, which approved over $300,000 in financing for a new automation
system. The new system went live in January 2008. In Allan Wilson’s words, At the time that this initiative began, the library had many employees who felt they could not frankly express their opinions. When students queried staff on these projects, they were more forthcoming than when management itself tried to solicit similar information . . . Staff members were frank with students once they saw that the students had no hidden agenda and that they were there to assemble information. Confidentiality had been guaranteed to participants and students performed admirably in assuring that such criteria were met. From the library viewpoint, introducing a sense of change by using students to conduct open-ended queries allowed the management to gain much needed staff input into the change agenda that major systems renewal would entail. . . . I found the projects rewarding and the curiosity of students energizing. They looked at the business side of libraries in a new way that often led us to question long held policies and procedures (personal communication, September 2010)
The first study highlighted the potential of student projects as a vehicle for exploring library issues. The chief librarian and first author agreed to offer one servicelearning project per semester to college students on an ongoing basis. Wilson invented the acronym, BITS (business information technology students), as the brand name to promote the student projects within the broader library community. Later, the first author was appointed by the City of Prince George as a member of the board of trustees of the public library.
Public Library Fund-Raising Survey The project during the winter of 2007 was the first to attract outside attention. The Prince George library board was exploring ways to finance the renovation of the main library branch. As part of their research, library staff asked accounting students to survey the fund-raising practices of other public libraries. All the public libraries in the province were contacted and those who agreed to participate completed a questionnaire, which was followed up by a telephone interview. A student worked with a librarian to embed the online questionnaire into the library website and presented their report at the Beyond Hope Library Conference. Her work ethic impressed library managers and she was later hired as a library employee.
Library Collection Capitalization Project The Library Collection Capitalization project was in response to a new financial reporting standard, 3150— Tangible Capital Assets, issued by the Canadian Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB). Local governments and municipally funded organizations, such as the Prince George Public Library, had to capitalize all their long-lived assets by January 1, 2009.
212–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
As the aging of municipal infrastructure such as roads has become a political issue, the new standard was intended to improve financial disclosure concerning the amount and use of municipal capital assets. The student team would research the new PSAB standard and recommend new accounting policy to the library’s management team. The new standard was a major change for local governments. Previously, municipalities expensed the cost of new long-lived assets in their year of construction. Now, local governments had to retroactively record decades of investment in roads and other assets onto their balance sheets and depreciate such assets over their useful lifetimes. Similarly, with over 100,000 books in its collection and a turnover of over 10,000 titles a year, the public library required accounting policies for its collections that met the new PSAB 3150 standard. Four students worked on the project. They studied the new standards and reviewed the financial statements of every public library in British Columbia. Their search identified six Canadian public and academic libraries that already capitalized their collections and they studied the libraries’ accounting policies. The librarians of the Regina Public Library were particularly helpful. The library had begun capitalizing their library’s collections 20 years before and solved many of the challenges. After reviewing the library’s accounting policies, students conversed with the library staff via email and telephone to study their policies and operating practices in depth. A student played a key role in the project by creating a spreadsheet that simplified the task of accounting for the thousands of books purchased and discarded each year. By entering the number of books purchased each year, the cost of those titles and the number lost or discarded each year, the spreadsheet estimated the annual depreciation expense and the cost of library books to be removed from the balance sheet. An employee of a local business, he had considerable spreadsheet experience and later accepted a lucrative job offer in Alberta. As he described his experience in the project, The value it adds is second to none, we can all read books on how to build airplanes but most of us wouldn’t have the confidence then to go build one and fly it. It is when we start to get our hands dirty that we truly start to understand everything we have learned at the book level and begin to build the confidence to trust ourselves. (personal communication, September 2010)
The library collection capitalization study attracted interest within the library community as it proposed a simple solution for a problem faced by public libraries. The study was later converted into a business case study and published in the International Journal of Case Method Research & Application (IJCRA). Two students received $5,000 scholarships.
Terms of Enjoyment Project The sixth service-learning project attracted the most attention within the library community. A problem faced by public libraries was how to quantify the value of their services to local residents. While libraries measure many aspects of their operations, there was no generally accepted overall measure of public library performance. The metrics used by public libraries are hard to explain to nonlibrarians, such as city counsellors, and not directly comparable to those used by other municipal facilities, such as swimming pools and hockey rinks. The project proposed a new time-based metric based on the number of hours that residents use library services. The usage by local residents, from children’s programs to borrowed books, can be combined into a single, easily understood number. The study attempted to answer the question, “How many hours did the residents of Prince George use public library services during the month of November 2008?” The study estimated the number of hours that patrons used library services both within library branches and offsite. Gate counter technology and computer algorithm software estimated the hours that patrons spent in library branches. Periodic observational sweeps of both branches recorded where people were located and what they were doing in the library. More challenging was how to estimate the number of hours that patrons spent offsite using library-borrowed materials. Again, a student played a key role by challenging the original methodology of patron questionnaires and speed reading tests. Forced to improvise, the working group prototyped a reading diary similar to the one used by Nielsen Research (for television viewing surveys). When residents signed out books from the circulation desk during the first week of November 2008, the circulations staff asked whether they would participate in a study. Patrons who agreed were given a reading diary and asked to record how many hours they spend reading the borrowed materials. When patrons returned the borrowed materials, they returned the time diaries. Based on gate count records and reading diaries, the study estimated that local residents used 207,000 hours of library services during November 2008. The chief librarian presented the study at the 2009 British Columbia Library Association (BCLA) Conference and the new metric was described in a Library Journal article. The metric was adopted by at least two public libraries and there were many inquiries regarding its methodology. During August 2013, an improved version of the time-use study was conducted at the public library after a review of the literature. The results of the second study were presented at 2014 BCLA Conference.
29. BITS–•–213
Conclusion and Implications A request from a chief librarian led to a series of servicelearning projects that benefitted the public library and the students who participated in the studies and raised the profile of the college program in the community. The library studies followed several success factors identified in the literature (Wilcox & Zigurs, 2003). Prior to each semester, the chief librarian and first author brainstormed future projects, prepared project scope statements, and evaluated their suitability. The chief librarian enthusiastically participated in projects and treated the students as equals. As the chief librarian and first author regularly attended the weekly meetings, communication took place, and decisions were made. Students participated as volunteers, had equal voices in all decisions, and could withdraw without penalty. The methodology did have limitations. Only one project was scheduled per semester and no more than six students were involved in each study. When two concurrent projects were undertaken at the Prince George Public Library and Prince George Airport Authority during the winter of 2008, a problem developed. Regular meetings did not occur, so
References and Further Readings Andrews, C. P. (2007). Service learning: Applications and research in business. Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 19–26. Chiang, B. (2008). Integrating a service-learning project into management accounting coursework—A sharing of implementation experience and lessons learned. Accounting Education, 17(4), 431–445. Govekar, M. A., & Rishi, M. (2007). Service learning: Bringing real-world education into the b-school classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 3–10. Gujarathi, M. R., & McQuade, R. J. (2002). Service learning in business schools: A case study in an intermediate accounting course. The Journal of Education for Business, 77(3), 144–150. Harris, G. (2004). Lessons for service learning in rural areas. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 41–50.
communication broke down between the students and airport staff on at least one occasion. While meeting with the two parties at the airport quickly resolved the issue, multiple service-learning projects were not attempted again. In the first author’s experience, the research seminar model is faculty time intensive and hard to scale up. Bea Chiang (2008) partially resolved this constraint in a management accounting course by assigning service-learning projects to entire classes. Projects entailed a series of class meetings with the sponsoring agency, reading assignments, and a structured reflective process. Students prepared a series of written assignments that culminated in a final report and class presentations. This approach allowed a larger number of students to be involved in a servicelearning project and facilitated learning through a structured reflective process. The use of rubrics (Still & Clayton, 2004) would have clarified expectations and improved the rigor of student evaluations. As discussed in the chapter, the extent to which servicelearning is used within postsecondary business programs in Canada is unknown. A survey of business programs could assess the use of service-learning in Canadian colleges and universities across the country.
Hoxmeier, J., & Lenk, M. M. (2003). Service-learning in information systems courses: Community projects that make a difference. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(1), 91–100. Rama, D. V., Ravenscroft, S. P., Wolcott, S. K., & Zlotkowski, E. (2000). Service-learning outcomes: Guidelines for educators and researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, 15(4), 657–692. Schwalbe, K. (2006). Information technology project management (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Course Technology. Still, K., & Clayton, P. R. (2004). Utilizing service-learning in accounting programs. Issues in Accounting Education, 19(4), 469–486. Wilcox, E., & Zigurs, I. (2003). A method for enhancing the success of service-learning projects in information systems curricula. Information Systems Education Journal, 1(17), 3–17.
Appendix A Business Analysis Project Charter PROJECT CHARTER (DRAFT) Project Title: Prince George Public Library Accounting Project Start date: February 3, 2006 Projected End Date: March 31, 2006 Project Manager: John Shepherd
214–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
Project Objectives: To perform a business analysis of accounting system of the Prince George Public Library and the systems providing input into that system. The payroll system is not included in the study. The deliverable of the project will be a report outlining the requirements for a new accounting system which • interfaces with other information systems, in particular, the fund-raising and material acquisitions systems, to minimize the number of duplicate entries; • provides library management and staff with relevant and timely reports to assist in the performance of their duties; • provides reports to key stakeholders and funding providers (e.g., federal, provincial, municipal, regional district, and board of governors); and • includes adequate internal controls. Approach: 1. Conduct interviews and other forms of fact finding to assess the systems, which input to the accounting system. 2. Conduct interviews and other forms of fact finding to assess the existing accounting system. 3. The team, in conjunction with library staff, will identify ways of improving the existing system and prepare business requirements for the proposed new accounting system. Roles and Responsibilities: Name
Project Role
Allan Wilson Marjory Tunney
Sponsors
John Shepherd
Team Leader Team Member Team Member Team Member Team Member Team Member Team Member Team Member
Contact Information
30 SERVICE-LEARNING AND BUSINESS A Student’s Perspective DIANA E. KOLAR JPMorgan Chase & Co.
T
his chapter serves as an appeal to undergraduate business professors to consider adding a servicelearning component to their classes as well as an encouragement for business students to take service-learning courses, as the pedagogy completely transformed my outlook on how to achieve professional and personal success in business.
Discovering Business Success Beyond the Traditional Model I graduated from the Georgetown University McDonough School of Business in 2012 with a major in finance and minors in Spanish and justice and peace studies. Currently, I am an investment banking associate at JPMorgan Chase, and have had banking internships at JP Morgan, PNC, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch as well as experience at nonprofits such as the Grameen Foundation. My professional success to date has been shaped by my undergraduate education, where I had the opportunity to take multiple service-learning classes in both business and liberal arts. I now understand that technical proficiency can enhance and strengthen career advancement when coupled with soft skills such as multicultural sensitivity and reflection and with ideals such as justice, responsibility, and reciprocity.
My Undergraduate Years at Business School I began my career at Georgetown, a Catholic and Jesuit university, with a firm desire to learn everything that I could
about the world of business so that I could become a topperforming employee of a large international institution. I thought that meant I needed to take every finance, accounting, and marketing class offered so that my technical skills would be top-notch when I entered the competitive corporate world. However, after I enrolled in my first servicelearning course, Introduction to Justice and Peace Studies (JUPS), I realized that there were crucial developmental components that my technical, case-study-driven business classes did not address. In connection with my JUPS class, I engaged in service with the Little Friends for Peace (LFFP) program at the Perry School twice weekly, where I worked with other partners to make concepts of peace and respect relevant to children who had grown up surrounded by violence. Although I had volunteered before, the correlation between what I was learning in the classroom and the nature of my community engagement made me feel more connected to both the students and the LFFP program, and I felt a level of personal responsibility for the outcomes of the work that I was doing that I had never experienced before. We realized that I was the first business student to ever serve with the LFFP program, and the managers of the program asked me to use my unique skills to assist with their budget planning and grant applications. Putting my newly acquired accounting skills to work for an organization to which I felt strongly connected helped me to learn more about how to apply classroom concepts in real-life situations and solidified my technical skills. It also allowed me to gain practical experience that I could later discuss during professional interviews and strengthened my ability to appreciate diversity of skills and motivators in a working environment. 215
216–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
My eye-opening experience with JUPS and Little Friends for Peace made me realize that many business classes lacked this service-learning component. Courses at Georgetown such as Intermediate Accounting, Introduction to Marketing, and Financial Management did not offer a service-learning component, and I strongly believed that they should. Convinced that since the Jesuit value of cura personalis, or caring for the whole person, correlated so clearly with the service-learning tenets of reality, reflection, and reciprocity, there had to be a multitude of servicelearning courses available to Georgetown undergraduates across the nursing, foreign service, college, and business schools, I pulled the course listing from the Center for Social Justice and was intrigued by the results. From fall 2002 through spring 2013, more than 80 faculty members across all four schools at Georgetown incorporated service-learning projects into their courses. The median number of unique service-learning courses taught each semester was 15; the average mix of service-learning course offerings by school during that time period was 74.7% College of Arts and Sciences, 5.8% School of Business, 15.6% School of Nursing and Health Studies, and 3.9% School of Foreign Service. During those 22 semesters, the maximum number of service-learning business courses offered in the same semester was two. Also, there were only two business professors teaching servicelearning courses during that time (Georgetown University Center for Social Justice, n.d.). Engaging in Service-Learning: In Retrospect My service-learning experience with the JUPS class was so rewarding that I could not wait to sign up for the only service-learning course being offered in the business school the next semester—an upper-level management course called Creativity and Innovation. I was eager to learn about the service component of the course and was shocked that the majority of my business student peers had no idea what service-learning was when they enrolled. Challenging accepted standards in thinking and action and embracing change were some of the main takeaways from this management course, both of which were brilliantly highlighted through class involvement with our community partner, the Mattie Miracle Cancer Foundation. A very different experience, I found it more closely resembled an actual business scenario, complete with progress reports, presentations, and a final paper advising the organization as to how it might change its corporate model. I recognized the processes of brainstorming, client meetings, and supervisor check-ins from my summer experiences on Wall Street and was impressed by how effortlessly they lent themselves to the purposes of the course. Our service project took the form of a semester-long assignment—to create a proposal that would help further the mission of Mattie Miracle, a foundation dedicated to bringing awareness to the psychosocial effects of child cancer and provide
services for patients and families at Georgetown’s Lombardi Cancer Center. The professor did not dictate in what specific capacity or how we should help the center, which was frustrating at first but ultimately allowed for a more wide-reaching and extensive creative process. The students were able to learn how to brainstorm and solve business problems in a group, which are crucial professional skills. In my experience, the most rewarding part of any service-learning class is witnessing the effect of academic service work firsthand. We set up a schedule to present our ideas to the founders of the Mattie Miracle Cancer Foundation, and they offered feedback that the groups then used to further develop their proposals before the final report was due at the end of the semester. On the last day of class, we submitted our consultant report as well as an essay describing the creative, collaborative process that we followed to reach our final recommendation. Reflection is a critical component to service-learning courses, and I believe that incorporating it into a final group paper as well as classroom discussion helped us to understand that although the world of business can seem overly technical and numbers focused, intellectual and emotional reflection is necessary for understanding and growth. As I applied for investment banking summer internships and full-time positions, my service-learning experience became a focal point both as a line item on my resume and as an interesting, relevant answer to the inevitable interview questions about how my college courses were related to my career goals. Although not all of the business professionals vetting me as a potential candidate knew what service-learning was, they were all intrigued by the concept and impressed by the way I was able to link academic concepts with real-world financial experience and the needs of the surrounding community. When I interviewed for my internship at Grameen, I was able to talk about my service-learning experience with the Little Friends for Peace organization and clearly link my objective to major in finance with my aspiration of helping others. Since my acceptance of a full-time position at JPMorgan & Co., there have been numerous situations where I have been able to differentiate myself beyond what my brief work history might indicate. I believe that my undergraduate service-learning was not only effective on my resume but has also shaped my perspective and performance by causing me to approach situations and problems more holistically.
Case for Service-Learning for All Business Students As the world of business continues to evolve and become more internationally connected and certain businesses have begun to emphasize their social responsibility, the next generation of business leaders is expected to develop
30. Service-Learning and Business–•–217
an understanding of multicultural sensitivity and ethical concepts of justice, responsibility, and reciprocity. There has been a growing concern that “business students were learning in a world that was rife with examples of ethical lapses on the part of business leaders” (Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008, p. 811), such as the Enron scandal and the 2008 financial crisis, and universities and companies have been challenged to develop more socially responsible candidates to prevent these scandals from occurring once more. As the skill sets that are necessary to become successful in business evolve, it makes sense that undergraduate business classes should transform to meet these changing needs. Canned, scripted case studies are becoming less relevant as business professors and students alike realize the importance of experiential learning to prepare for an experience-based profession. A service-learning professional at Georgetown noted “business schools are at a great advantage because they are teaching to prepare students for today, outside right now” (D. Kolar, personal communication, March 29, 2012). Business courses are constantly adapting to prepare students for the most recent technology and software, and this trend of adaptation should extend to all aspects of the profession and the courses that prepare students to succeed. However, not all educational theorists understand the need to extend this adaptive link to concepts beyond technology, and some have written literature that highlights a supposed conflict between the problemposing pedagogy of service-learning and core business principles. In his revolutionary work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire (1970) critiques a model of education in which a teacher merely narrates information to students, treating them as empty vessels into which information must be correctly “deposited.” This “banking” model, in which students are forbidden from thinking critically and may only “receive, file, and store the deposits” (Freire, 1970, p. 72), shared with them by professors is strongly characterized by its lack of communication and censure of creativity. Viewed by Freire as oppressive and violent, the “bank-clerk” educators do all that they can to maintain this “profitable model” by stifling their students’ critical conscientizacao (consciousness) and maintaining their position of unquestioned authority. Those who teach banking courses (by Freire’s definition) view their role as necessary to “regulate the way the world ‘enters into’ students” (Freire, 1970, p. 76), rather than allowing for open communication and dialogue so that students may freely enter into the world. In problem-posing education, both professors and students teach each other through constant questioning and communication. This communication is characterized not by a mere transfer of information, but a transformation of knowledge as it passes through the critical minds (not empty vessels) of those processing it. Freire’s problem-posing theory also supports the pedagogy of service-learning, in which students not only “serve to learn” but also “learn to serve.” Transformative
education requires students to maintain an alert consciousness and connectivity with a dynamic reality, which can take the form of a physical classroom or the community itself. The problem-posing model allows students to see reality as a process that they can have an active role in transforming (and serving) rather than as a static norm to be ingested and accepted. Service-learning supports this theory by encouraging students to explore new territories (both physical and intellectual) while increasing engagement in both campus and community. In a pre- and poststudy on exploration, affiliation, experimentation, and assimilation preferences for community involvement for 83 students enrolled in four sections of a service-learning course conducted by Payne (2000), students changed their exploration and assimilation preferences for community service by the end of the semester. Service-learners reduced their apprehension levels (exploration preference) for community involvement, and they increased their lifelong commitments (assimilation preference) to community service (as cited in Simons & Cleary, 2006). This problem-posing concept of education can play an active role in producing the next generation of civically engaged leaders who can transform society for the better. However, the tendency of some business professors to shy away from revamping their curriculum to engage this pedagogy is not helped by the negative connotation that fundamental research associates with the word banking. According to a 2002 survey of faculty responses from more than 500 members at 29 diverse institutions, one of the most common factors that deterred faculty from using service-learning is the belief that the pedagogy is not relevant to the courses they teach. The factors that deterred faculty from using service-learning differed depending on their academic discipline. Faculty from fields such as education, social work, human ecology, and agriculture were primarily deterred only by logistical issues such as rethinking syllabi and coordinating schedules and funding. On the other hand, faculty from sciences and mathematics courses were strongly dissuaded from using service-learning because of lack of perceived academic relevance (Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002). This dismissal of the positive potential of servicelearning on business and the banking field in particular is disconcerting; there are many exciting, revolutionary business ideals that challenge both lender and banker and allow both to work together to reach mutually beneficial and developmental goals that can serve the community at large. Using investor funds to create environmentally sustainable community buildings and strategic international microfinance initiatives are just a few examples of this dynamic process at work. Financial expertise and access to capital provide bankers with a unique and powerful opportunity to work with people and communities to create positive, lasting change. Business education should highlight these development opportunities and work to actively solve business problems in and out of the classroom. Business
218–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
classes should challenge students to apply finance and marketing skills to real-life clients and allow them to generate and witness actual results. Problem-posing education does not conflict with the study of business; on the contrary, this revolutionary pedagogy encourages the development of technical and soft business skills, reinforces respect for diversity, and promotes a new generation of ethical and socially conscious business leaders. Encouraging students to question academic concepts in the classroom allows them to build the confidence to challenge potentially unethical practices and deals in the workplace and to understand more fully the benefits and structure of an open, constructive dialogue. In addition to opening students’ minds to the power of constructive dialogue and inspiring them to challenge injustices in the classroom and the workplace, servicelearning education promotes three types of skills that are extremely valuable to business students and necessary for their future success.
Service-Learning and the Development of Three Critical Types of Skills It has been my experience that service-learning not only enhances but completes business education by offering benefits that are critical to long-term professional success. I have categorized the main benefits of service-learning into three buckets, based on the types of skills learned. The first category is resume-building skills, which highlight the importance of experience and technical proficiency that participants achieve and can add to their resumes when applying for jobs. Soft skills such as reflection, multicultural sensitivity, and environmental awareness are in the second bucket, while the third holds the skills of responsibility and reciprocity. When categorizing these skills obtained through service-learning, I noticed that the three Rs of reality, reflection, and reciprocity that Paul Godfrey, Louise Illes, and Gregory Berry (2005) define as building blocks necessary for a successful service-learning experience also translate into core takeaways from a well-crafted course and fall neatly into the three buckets just defined. The reality of applying academic concepts to real-world organizations in real-time translates into the experience students can list and talk about on their resumes. Reflecting upon outcomes and process of service-learning is a soft skill necessary in modern businesses, and understanding the reciprocal nature of relationships and transactions contributes to students’ developing a sense of social responsibility and their long-term business success.
Resume-Building Skills Students want content delivered in a way that has a clear connection to their careers. Business students start their undergraduate careers trying to build up their resume so
that they can land high-paying, impressive jobs in an extremely competitive industry. The main components of a resume are grade point average (GPA) and work experience, so students spend their four years finding ways to create a dynamic, demanding class and extracurricular schedule that will impress potential employers. Servicelearning provides a unique and powerful opportunity to construct a standout resume. On the Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business website, there is an overview of service-learning that details what it is and why its learning outcomes are relevant for business students. The main benefit listed for students is “increased job-readiness and pre-employment skills” (McManus Warnell, 2007). The experience and technical skills garnered through service-learning classes have certainly helped me in both bulking up my resume and acing interviews and I believe that the potential for servicelearning projects to develop these two skills needs to be highlighted for business students and professors. Although I understand the value of an internship done during the academic year, I think the nonprofit consulting experience that students in business service-learning classes have the opportunity to participate in while enrolled in the class is extremely beneficial and often overlooked. Experience (Reality—First R) The main resume-building professional asset that service-learning promotes is experience. In a competitive profession where it seems the only way to get a job is to already have had the same job at a comparable firm, any type of work that can be linked to both professional goals and relevant academic content is a major advantage in both the resume and interview process. In many interviews and cover letters, students are asked about the classes they are currently taking and how they think those classes will help them in their careers. Service-learning provides a straightforward, interesting answer to that question and highlights students’ ability to connect their academic coursework with their clients and community. When compared directly with the commonly used business pedagogy of case studies, Berry and Marilyn Taylor (2006) argue that although both service-learning and case teaching “provide opportunity for facilitated discussion of the students’ understanding of real life situations, their analysis of situations, and their logic in developing recommendations for those situations” (p. 179), service-learning “appears to have some advantages over the use of cases in the classroom (e.g., increasing students’ learning)” (p. 179). Service-learning experience represents live cases (i.e., real-world, real-time) as students “actively assist local small businesses and nonprofit organizations in becoming more effective and successful” (p. 179). Rather than reading about someone else’s reality in a canned, generic case study and discussing potential solutions with classmates, service-learning
30. Service-Learning and Business–•–219
participants are able to partake in real-world, real-time problems and act as decision makers in enforcing immediate action to solve client needs. This element of reality allows students to “apply rigorous academic content in a real-world setting” and participate in the “multifunctional, multi-disciplinary and multi-objective real world” (Godfrey, Illes, & Berry, 2005, p. 315). Real-life case situations are not as neatly outlined as those provided by the Harvard Business School, and thus it is “imperative that business students learn to deal more effectively with change and ambiguity” (Zlotkowski, 1996, p. 7). Also, students cannot list on their resume that they wrote a well-graded paper analyzing and recommending action for a fictional or historical case study they reviewed in class; they can, however, list their work and the real outcomes of their service-learning experience at a nonprofit organization. Essentially, students can take the same management and organizational behavior class that they are already required to take, except the section that offers a service-learning component maximizes the value of their time spent on the course because they can get more out of it. This experience with nonprofit organizations, in addition to populating a necessary line-item on a resume (or talking point in an interview), also helps to strengthen the technical skills students are learning in their business classes by “creating linkages between conceptual material and more concrete practical experiences” (KenworthyU’Ren, 2000, p. 58). Understanding how to apply formulas and conceptual tool kits to problem sets that are neatly defined in a textbook is one thing; being able to relate and use these concepts in unscripted business situations while you are learning helps to solidify them into your arsenal of skills.
‘solving unstructured problems’ and of dealing with messy or incomplete data” (Zlotkowski, 1996, p. 7). I could not go back to my project coordinator and tell her that I did not have all necessary information to determine the amount of funding needed according to the method in my textbook— I was challenged to consult various sources and use concepts from different frameworks to put together a sound business recommendation. This ability to see beyond the formulas and understand the bigger, strategic picture is what businesses are looking for in the next generation of leaders, and service-learning offers a great opportunity for students to develop this valuable skill. The reality of service-learning outcomes also puts pressure on students to learn how to think both accurately and creatively. If I did not precisely forecast the amount of grant money Little Friends for Peace needed for the upcoming academic year, it would have had to cut key programs and limit the scope of activities it could do with the children at the Perry School. Thinking and acting in this type of environment, which is real but not as cutthroat and competitive as many financial firms, allows students to understand how to pull technical tools from various academic kits to solve problems while also learning how to perform and deliver under pressure. These resume-building skills of experience and technical proficiency allow students and professors to avoid the narrowness that can sometimes characterize business education. The real-world, dynamic situations that servicelearning provides challenge students to develop skill sets more advanced than “entry-level cogs in a machine” and help them to “question and examine business decisions and assumptions and thereby become strategic contributors early in their careers” (Godfrey et al., 2005, p. 312).
Soft Skills Technical Skills In my Introduction to Accounting class, we learned how to understand the individual line items and overall flow of financial statements by studying filings from multimilliondollar corporations. These templates contained all references and footnotes necessary to complete problem sets and exams—however, there was little deep-diving into how to understand a company’s cash flow needs and forecasts since the information was not neatly laid out and available. Looking at a small nonprofit organization’s (such as the Little Friends for Peace program I served with) profit and loss statements and understanding the big picture of how much capital is needed in order to fund projects for the upcoming year allows students to use classroom concepts to search for and complete a financial story that may not already be clearly consolidated. Doyle Williams, past president of the American Accounting Association, notes, “whereas the traditional approach to accounting education stressed ‘calculating one right answer,’ the new focus must recognize the importance of
In addition to these technical and problem-solving abilities that result from service-learning, the experience also allows students to develop soft skills that are often taken for granted in the aggressive business world (but still necessary for success). Most business situations involve working in teams, and group work and discussion are an integral part of the undergraduate business curriculum. Collaborating with people toward a common goal sometimes creates controversy and divergent thinking, especially when the people involved are from diverse backgrounds and are motivated by different things. However, in service-learning classes reflection upon this group process (as well as the end product) is highly supported. Encouragement to take a step back and evaluate group and process dynamics heightens students’ awareness of their own motivators as well as what motivates the actions of their peers. This ability to understand what various parties are driven by and looking to achieve in any business situation is critical, and is highlighted by the service-learning process.
220–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
Reflection (Second R) The second of the three Rs mentioned earlier, reflection, “forces students to think deeply and write cogently about how their service-learning experience has affected them and assists in creating an ‘organic connection’ between the experience and the individual” (Godfrey et al., 2005, p. 316). Reflection provides “deep, internal links between the experiences [students] have had, their academic coursework, and their own selves and lives,” which leads to an increase in the likelihood that “service-learning provides education and not merely experience” (Godfrey et al., 2005, p. 317). In the Creativity and Innovation management class I took at Georgetown, we were asked to write individual and group reflections on both the service process and the outcome for ourselves and the client. Discussing takeaways my group and I each had from the experience, I was fascinated by the deductions that we shared as a group and those that we realized individually. Hearing what my peers learned from the experience allowed us to connect on a more personal level, as we each compared and contrasted our thoughts and were inspired to examine the situation we all commonly shared from unique perspectives. Although at first my peers and I thought the final reflective discussion and paper were just going to be an additional time-consuming assignment, we all concluded the experience with a deep appreciation for the introspective and collaborative process and were inspired to apply it to other group and professional situations. Experiences that involve working with others to actively collaborate with an outside organization, if not reflected upon, can “be misleading, even harmful, which produces a lack of sensitivity and responsiveness in the learner [or employee]” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1997, p. 153). Furthermore, Glenn and Nelson propose that it is only when these meaningful encounters are “thoughtfully considered and analyzed that generalizations are formed to influence future action” (in Bringle & Hatcher, 1997, p. 153). After listening to what my peer group in Creativity and Innovation had to say about both the experience and my personal contributions to it, I was able to learn how to improve my future performance and also how to think more broadly and consider additional perspectives when approaching collaborative situations. For example, all investment banking analysts at JPMorgan are asked to complete a self-assessment at the end of our first year, summarizing our strengths and opportunities for future development. My experience with active reflection in service-learning classes at Georgetown helped me to feel more comfortable with this task, which was deemed daunting by most of my peers. Not only was I comfortable with introspectively assessing my work and understanding how others might perceive my performance, I was able to communicate my assessment effectively and professionally, and this self-awareness was viewed as a valuable, differentiating asset by my managers.
Reflection allows students to analyze not only what influences their own actions, but also what influences and motivates the actions and decisions of others. Being aware of and sensitive to these multiple perspectives is invaluable in professional situations where colleagues or clients approach the same situation with different ideas and expect different outcomes.
Multicultural Sensitivity Service-learning presents a unique opportunity for students to gain “first-hand experience of diversity and multiculturalism” and interact with people different from themselves (Soukop, 1996, p. 9). This experience with and openness to diversity is “not only an assessment of an individual’s openness to cultural, racial, and value diversity, it also taps the extent to which an individual enjoys being challenged by different ideas, values, and perspectives as well as an appreciation of racial, cultural, and value diversity” (Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini, 1996, p. 179). In his article Service-Learning and Student Diversity Outcomes, Matthew Holsapple (2012) argues that exposure to service-learning has six diversity outcomes for students: stereotype confrontation, belief in the value of diversity, knowledge about the served population, tolerance of difference, interactions across difference, and recognition of universality. I agree with Holsapple’s conclusions and argue that these service-learning diversity outcomes are necessary for success in the modern, international workplace. Most service-learning organizations are populated with employees from unique, diverse backgrounds, and working in these environments can help teach students from a more homogenous student body how to respect and appreciate different perspectives. During the service-learning process, students “negotiate with real-life clients and often the client’s clients, and this up-close-and-personal presence of multiple stakeholders increases the social and economic diversity interaction for the participant” (Berry & Taylor, 2006, p. 183). In addition to the social and economic diversity that students face when working with service-learning organizations, I believe that exposure to people with a wide range of values and motivators is key to students developing a balanced perspective. When I began working at Little Friends for Peace, I was shocked to find myself surrounded by people who were passionate about leading a life of service and conflict resolution, with little emphasis on monetary success. Conversations with these dedicated program coordinators, rather than persuading me to abandon my goals of a successful career in finance, encouraged me to add depth to my perspective and to not allow myself to succumb to value tunnel vision when I started my career in investment banking. One goal of financial institutions is to make money; however, this is only one of many firm objectives and can be achieved only through successfully
30. Service-Learning and Business–•–221
meeting and understanding client needs. Profit-seeking employees may achieve short-term success, but it is the awareness of and the ability to serve client needs that leads to long-term achievement. JP Morgan Chase & Co. has offices in more than 60 countries around the world, and as an investment banking analyst, even though I am based in New York, I interact with international clients on a frequent basis. My service-learning experience has helped me to appreciate the diversity of the various teams that I work with and the multitude of clients that I serve, allowing me to be a more thoughtful and responsive colleague and employee. In addition to becoming more aware of what motivates you and others, service-learning promotes and influences future action in students, inspiring them to assume responsibility for their actions and understand the reciprocal nature of business decisions.
Social Responsibility Skills Reciprocity (Third R) The third R of service-learning is reciprocity, or the idea that both the student and community organization benefit from the exchange (Jacoby, 1996). This concept that actions are multidimensional and have outcomes significant to more than one party is critical to business education. Business students spend so much of their academic experience analyzing transactions and the near-term profits made by either party in mergers, acquisitions, and other strategic ventures that in certain cases they may start to apply this narrow, transactional view to human interactions as well. Basic economic theory teaches students to consider “only two entities, firms and customers . . . that transact with one another only on the premise of individual gain” and this lays the groundwork for all future educational segmentation (Godfrey et al., 2005, p. 315). In servicelearning situations, students are able to witness firsthand how their actions impact not only their letter grades but also their personal growth and development as an individual. Additionally, they can recognize how their work impacts and serves the organization and their community. This broadening of experiential scope invites students to apply concepts from other classes (not just business) to their service projects, teaching them how to approach problems with an interdisciplinary and wide-ranging view. In service-learning classes, students are introduced to the concept of organizations as “partners rather than simply clients,” learning how to simultaneously serve and learn from the organization (Godfrey et al., 2005, p. 317). This understanding of the value that each participant in a transaction or venture brings to the table is critical in combating the traditional consulting model where students (or employees) “presume to possess superior scholarly
knowledge which they will employ to rescue the inferior client” (p. 317). Promoting the reciprocal nature of these partnerships in an academic setting allows students to accept and welcome the different types of knowledge contributed by both themselves and their partner organization, that can “work together to reinforce learning and improve performance by both parties” (p. 317). Improved performance by both parties is a key takeaway from this experience, as once students view this outcome in service-learning they can grasp why reciprocal client relationships are relevant to success in the professional business world as well. The fast-paced, competitive environment that dominates many modern businesses can sometimes foster the idea that the ends justify the means; students who are able to understand early on the importance of considering the ends for both themselves and other participants in the transaction have a lesser chance of “alienating [their] social goals and values” through the “exclusive pursuit of monetary income” (Godfrey et al., 2005, p. 315). In addition to improving performance by understanding that client partnerships represent an opportunity to learn and grow rather than just make money, the real-world consequences of service-learning compels students to take responsibility for their actions in the classroom, workplace, and community.
Responsibility Responsibility holds that “in addition to their wealthcreation goals students should assume the obligations of citizenship; there is a moral imperative for them to use their business skills, talents, and knowledge to better those communities where they live and work” (Godfrey et al., 2005, p. 318). Many schools, including Georgetown, already have “universally adopted formal coursework in business ethics, responsibilities of leadership, and business and society” (Kolenko, Porter, Wheatley, & Colby, 1996, p. 134). I argue that these courses, while beneficial to helping students understand overarching concepts of ethics and justice in the workplace, fail to create the real-life consequences for students that service-learning participants are faced with. Service-learning situations “create a responsibility for the participants to do their best work and make their greatest effort” because their failure to do so could have consequences that reach farther than just their GPA or profit margin (Berry & Taylor, 2006, p. 185). If students find themselves too busy to allocate a significant portion of time to writing up an analysis on a case study for their marketing class, the immediate result will simply be a poor grade on that particular assignment. However, if they fail to sufficiently prepare for and implement a project for their service-learning organization, the outcome affects far more parties than the individual
222–•–V. BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
student. Insight into the fact that business actions affect more than just GPA and near-term profits is critical to students’ future professional promotion and success. When students enter the workforce as analysts, it is easy to get caught up in the straightforward analysis of potential ventures, putting responsibility for the outcome on the numbers rather than yourself. Only by assuming ownership and responsibility for projects can students demonstrate the leadership capabilities necessary for continued professional success. I would further attest that by placing students in these new situations and truly putting their beliefs to the test, students are challenged to create their own value base and understand what matters most to them. Thomas Kolenko writes that “students often believe they know themselves and their values, until those beliefs are tested in new situations” (Kolenko et al., 1996, p. 136). It is one thing to vie for stakeholder wealth and customer and consumer rights on paper; it is another to realize how business outcomes extend to these participants and create actionable solutions that will change the lives of these parties. Experiencing this type of real responsibility helps create students who enter the workplace with an understanding of their personal values and the ability to lead others toward a socially responsible outcome. Through service-learning, students can “internalize the learning from these experiences through relatedness [with the client and course content], competence [getting the job done, and making a difference], all while working in highly autonomous selfmanaged teams” (Berry & Taylor, 2006, p. 187). Another fundamental strength of service-learning is its “ability to link doing well with doing good” (Zlotkowski, 1996, p. 10). Students who participate in service-learning are able to witness firsthand the great need that exists right outside their university and often develop feelings of responsibility and duty to their community. Servicelearning enforces important and applicable business concepts, such as the idea of co-creating value with consumers or organizations that business professionals interact with, feeling responsible for employees and the community, and promoting socially just business practices. When students are exposed to concepts of justice and ethics as they are learning about the intricacies of finance and accounting (rather than in separate courses or semesters), the values sink in and their relevance and necessity are understood.
Serving to Cultivate Civic-Minded, Savvy, and Successful Business Professionals
References and Further Readings
method on steroids. International Journal of Case Method Research & Application, XVIII(2), 179–192. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. College Teaching, 45(4), 153–158. Freire, P. (1970/1985). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing.
Abes, E., Jackson, G., & Jones, S. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 5–17. Berry, G. R., & Taylor, M. (2006). Service-learning as an instructional tool for university educations: The case
Some of the abilities highlighted in the three buckets of resume-building, soft skills, and social responsibility can also be obtained from a traditional business internship, which may take place in the summer or during an academic semester. The main focus of an internship is to prepare students for the postgraduate careers, and an internship does not need to be related to the community, nonprofit, or civic responsibility. In contrast, the goal of service-learning is to promote student understanding of course content through active, hands-on learning, and is characterized by the “intention to equally benefit the provider and the recipient of the service as well as to ensure equal focus on both the service being provided and the learning that is occurring” (Furco, 1996, p. 5). Although internships are also necessary for business education and professional success and can lead to the development of some skills that are also obtained through service-learning, the lack of a civic engagement component and the disassociation from academic course content do not make them a suitable substitute for the need for service-learning in business courses. While not appropriate replacements for one another, I do believe that internships and service-learning complement each other at various phases of a student’s career. During a business internship, an undergraduate student is exposed to the professional environment and learns how to “do things right”; in service-learning experiences tied to course content and community partnerships, students become effective moral leaders with an understanding of how to “do the right thing” (Steiner & Watson, 2006, p. 424). Service-learning experiences “provide [business] students with opportunities to enhance their managerial potential by honing interpersonal and leadership skills while at the same time gaining a greater appreciation of the need for ethical and citizenship behavior” (Lester, Tomkovick, Wells, Flunker, & Kickul, 2005). Business professionals, in addition to possessing the necessary technical skills, soft skills, and social responsibility, are also measured by their degree of engaged citizenship. Service-learning is an effective and feasible strategy for creating graduates who are able to empathize, collaborate, and work with rather than for their clients.
30. Service-Learning and Business–•–223 Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service. Georgetown University Center for Service and Social Justice. (n.d.). Service and social justice. Retrieved from http:// www.georgetown.edu/campus-life/service-and-socialjustice Godfrey, P., Illes, L. M., & Berry, G. (2005). Creating breadth in business education through service-learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 309–323. 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. Jacoby, B. 1996. Service-learning in today’s higher education. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 3–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. L. (2000). Management students as consultants: A strategy for service-learning in management education. In P. C. Godfrey & E. T. Grasso (Eds.), Working for the common good: Concepts and models for servicelearning in management (pp. 55–68). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Kenworthy-U’ren, A. L. (2008). A decade of service-learning: A review of the field ten years after JOBE’s seminal special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 811–822. Kolenko, T. A., Porter, G., Wheatley, W., & Colby, M. (1996). A critique of service learning projects in management education: Pedagogical foundations, barriers, and guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(1), 133–142.
Lester, S. W., Tomkovick, C., Wells, T., Flunker, L., & Kickul, J. (2005). Does service-learning add value? Examining the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 278–294. McManus Warnell, J. (2007). Community-based service learning: Best practices and resource information. Retrieved from http://www3.nd.edu/~mcobsl/pdf/ bestPracticesF07.pdf Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174–195. Payne, C. A. (2000). Changes in involvement preferences as measured by the community service involvement preference inventory. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 41–53. Simons, L., & Cleary, B. (2006). The influence of service learning on students’ personal and social development. College Teaching, 54(4), 307–319. Soukup, P. A. (1996, November). Inviting others to take the helm: Service-learning and the marginated community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA, November 23–26, 1996. Steiner, S. D., & Watson, M. A. (2006). The service learning component in business education: The values linkage void. Academy of Management Learning Education, 5(4), 422–434. Zlotkowski, E. (1996). Opportunity for all: Linking servicelearning and business education. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(1), 5–19.
PART VI THE HUMANITIES
31 INTEGRATING SERVICE-LEARNING INTO A UNIVERSITY MODERN LANGUAGES PROGRAM E. NICOLE MEYER Georgia Regents University
E
very academic field, including those in the humanities, benefits from integrating learning actively. Service-learning epitomizes active learning at its best. This chapter focuses on the role of service-learning and civic engagement, especially in the humanities and in language programs. It presents both the creation of a French discipline service-learning course and the forms of service-learning that preceded the more structured course. In these transformations of how service-learning occurs in French at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, a meaningful reconsideration of what service-learning is and what that looks like proves informative to practitioners of service-learning in many disciplines. Although the chapter derives principally from service-learning initiatives in language and literature programs, the theoretical framework, practical tools, and strategies it suggests translate to other disciplines. After defining both what service-learning is and what it is not in this context, why it should be considered integral to foreign language (world language) learning, and explaining the scaffolding of the service-learning course, the chapter shares lessons learned and ideas for the future of service-learning.
Service-Learning Service-learning has varied definitions. According to the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, “Servicelearning is a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities. Through service-learning, [students] use what they learn in the
classroom to solve real-life problems” (Harper College, 2014, para. 1–2). Students thus learn both the practical applications of their disciplinary studies and to contribute meaningfully to their communities. In sum, service-learning is a credit-bearing structured educational experience in which students reflect upon and gain further understanding of the course content and discipline and an enhanced sense of engaged citizenship through participation in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs. Both the community and the student benefit from this active collaboration, exchange of ideas, and focus on collaborative solutions. Reflection and reciprocity are key to successful service-learning (Jacoby, 1996). The community needs (and goals set in any service-learning project) exemplify reciprocity and reflection by involving the community in their determination. For this reason, the hyphen in the term service-learning is essential, as Robert Sigmon (1994) states, as both service and learning goals should be weighted equally. This balance of service and learning is reflected throughout the many characteristics of servicelearning and should be respected in the design of any project. In addition, the self-reflective nature of the partnership enhances the curriculum of the discipline. Students want their efforts to have meaning and purpose. The servicelearning course helps achieve these notable goals. The scaffolding of the course described below includes methods of integrating creativity and multiple options of service-learning projects yet avoids chaos. Execution can be daunting to faculty and staff, especially as productive negotiations with administration and community are essential to a successful community project. For the former, questions include how to structure the initial meetings of the course, what kinds of materials and suggestions to 227
228–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
provide, how to integrate the study of theory of world language acquisition and approaches to teaching with active learning, and what service-learning is. In short, what does successful service-learning look like, and how can we achieve this? For the community commitment, invaluable lessons come from reaching out to the community and communicating with partners. Despite the success of our French program, sustained skill in marketing and tact remain essential to establishing a broad base of opportunities for service-learning. Finally, quality analysis, reflection, assessment, and sharing with the community are essential to service-learning. Many disciplines can benefit from this chapter and can adapt it to their needs (e.g., math and history). Finally, smaller language programs faced with the possibility of extinction will appreciate how service-learning motivates students and increases the numbers of university French majors and minors.
Role of Service-Learning in World Language Programs While Ernest Boyer’s (1990) oft-cited call for a scholarship of engagement is general, it is particularly important in the foreign languages, as a brief glance at the respected standards for foreign language learning reveals. In National Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1999), Standard 5.1 stipulates that “Students use the target language both within and beyond the school setting” (p. 64) responding to “real-world needs” with the target language (p. 64), including through the presentation of information about the language and culture to others. The standards suggest designing culturally authentic activities, introducing games, music, and other ways of sharing their disciplinary knowledge. Global competence (international awareness, appreciation of cultural diversity, and proficiency in foreign languages) must be part of any education, in order for students to thrive in today’s “global and interdependent society” according to the National Education Association (NEA, 2010). Former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley (2000) compellingly argues that foreign language fluency is integral to our economy: I believe that in this new economy every high school student should be close to fluent in a foreign language when he or she graduates. We should begin teaching foreign languages in our elementary schools, and then in middle schools and high schools. English is a beautiful language and every American student must be a master of it. English is surely a world language. But learning a foreign language exposes young people to new cultures and new horizons, and helps them understand English better. (p. 190)
The Framework for 21st Century Learning also considers world languages to be a core subject necessary to
student success in the “new global economy” (Partnership, 2011). The framework stresses skills that are clearly incorporated into the service-learning projects described within this chapter, namely critical thinking and problem solving, adaptability, initiative, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, leadership and responsibility, communication and collaboration.
Intersection of Theory and Practice Background In this course, students study theories of servicelearning and of foreign language acquisition, as well as approaches to teaching, and then become active learners as well as contributing members of the community surrounding the university, a small liberal arts public university situated in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The service-learning program serves Green Bay–area youth as well as provides a learning opportunity for our own university students. My students have taught in several schools (public and private) as well as day cares. They have provided programs to public libraries and assisted teachers at all levels (K–12). Some projects focus on French language acquisition, others on French culture, and still others on critical thinking skills, literary analysis, and cultural values. Additional projects serve native French speakers in the community. In Spring 2013 and Spring 2014 every student contributed to a French Day serving many high school French students from Wisconsin. The organization, design, and choice of activities for this event formed a service-project for a student who also performed a second service-learning project working with a newly arrived French fifth grader. Each year, as many as 15 students teach up to 100 elementary and other students in our community or bring a variety of service-learning initiatives into the local community.
Course Objectives and Description The current program is part of a structured servicelearning course, where students study both theoretically and practically what constitutes service-learning and why and how it differs from volunteerism. The community’s role in defining goals is enlarged. In the past as now, university students definitely “apply their knowledge to address a curriculum-related need in the community” (Furco, 2002, p. 25) as elementary school students, their parents, teachers, and administration agreed that the world language vacuum needs filling at this academic level. In the current service-learning course, however, my students focus on working closely with their young students or other constituencies to ensure that the latter have input in what they learned. Goal setting occurs at all levels and is a reciprocal and ongoing process.
31. Integrating Service-Learning Into a University Modern Languages Program–•–229
Instructional Methods and Content Preparation Before entering the community schools, students study pedagogy, discuss what a good lesson and reinforcement look like, and learn relevant practical details: how to work with students’ teachers, where their classroom is located, and how to deal with discipline. The students receive materials (exercises, previous handouts, and models) designed to make their task easier, and only then do they teach young students. Action In some cases, students offer biweekly 20-minute lessons in French to elementary students (Grades 2–5). In other cases, 50-minute weekly lessons fit the school’s needs better. The weekly lessons focus on introducing concepts (numbers, colors, animals, basic French constructions, etc., depending on the articulated goals) and then reinforcing the concepts with games (flyswatter vocabulary matching games, charades, hangman, Pictionary), drawing, spelling words with letters for alphabet soup, marking dates on a calendar, singing (and acting out the songs), making and decorating clocks and showing the time on them, composing their own illustrated dictionary of their favorite words, and various ways of responding physically to commands given in French. Each semester, the classes culminate in a performance for parents and other students; for instance, they might perform at a French university concert (during intermission), put on a small skit, or simply share something they learned. For the French native fifth grader, two university students alternated working with her one on one. The day’s lesson corresponded to whatever the teacher and the young girl felt would help her keep up with her peers. The university students are paired if they are new teachers, or serve alone if they are successful repeat teachers. In this way, they also learned to collaborate with a partner. While some details differ, this model resembles other programs (Gascoigne & Osborn, 2012; Polansky, 2004; Thomas, 2012) where university students teach French or French culture to elementary children. Community Engagement Observation and reflection, usually in the form of a journal and a final reflection paper submitted as part of a portfolio, are integrated into the very course. The K–12 students enjoy their lessons and learn both French language and French culture and clearly benefit from the program. Our university students learned, just as those of Susan Polansky (2004), to put into practice authentic language and culture practice, to prepare lessons corresponding to their students’ interests, and to assume
responsibility in a situation that was new to them. The university students who worked with the newly arrived French student were astounded at how much they learned about the French education system and current colloquial expressions. This collaborative and reciprocal engagement in meeting the needs of community increases the depth of their learning (Pessate-Schubert, Lehman, & Thomas, 2006). Another unique aspect of our service-learning course is a joint collaboration: While one university student takes primary responsibility for the event, all of the students collaborate on putting together a French Day to which we invite state middle and high school French students. The French Day consists of structured events centering around one theme (e.g., le printemps, spring). After registration, a general welcome precedes students rotating among various learning tables (history, government, cuisine, etc.). The next portion of the morning is spent on related activities and exercises. Options include preparing a short skit, a poster contest, and a spelling bee. The latter proved both popular and challenging. There were four native speakers on exchange with regional high schools who competed, so we presented one award for native speakers and one for nonnative speakers. Community engagement was enhanced for those who did not participate and sat in the audience, as they were vocally supporting their schoolmates. Another highlight of community engagement was when we projected a French video that featured a line dance. The entire room was dancing—teachers included. Finally, we ended the event with awards (for the spelling bee, poster contest, and our own academic French program) and a French concert. The response was enthusiastic, and the teachers responded to my requests for feedback. Such an event clearly responds to the Modern Language Association (2007) call to promote alliances between K–12 educators and college and university faculty members in order to strengthen language learning at all levels.
Evaluation While other service-learning articles often relate their service-learning projects to how it better prepares their university students as future teachers, in our case, most students do not intend to enter the teaching profession. Some graduates, however, choose to teach English in France through the French Government English Teaching Assistantships before starting their careers. All of the university students expressed pleasure not only in the bonds they formed with the children they served, but in their own personal growth, both socially and academically. Evaluation of the service-learning projects is essential to this growth. In brief, those served, those serving, and those supervising assess whether the project was successful in meeting needs. In addition to examining how the service-learning project achieved their goals, evaluation encourages consideration of the ways in which the
230–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
service-learning could be improved. This model fits the PARE model first proposed by the University of Maryland (Jacoby, 2002).
I write in order to change myself and in order not to think the same thing as before” (p. 240).
Assessment
Lessons Learned Reciprocity Reciprocity in learning and in goal setting between the person serving and the person or group being served is key (Sigmon, 1979). To achieve this reciprocity, we interview those served before, during, and after. In this manner, “those served control the service(s) provided” (Sigmon, 1979, p. 10). According to Jane Kendall (1990), “All parties in service-learning are learners and help determine what is to be learned. Both the server and those served teach, and both learn” (p. 22), for “service-learning encourages students to do things with others rather than for them. Everyone should expect to change in the process” (Karasik, 1993). This reciprocity creates “a sense of mutual responsibility and respect between individuals in the service-learning exchange” (Kendall, 1990, p. 22) and enhances community engagement.
Reflection To be effective, service-learning requires reflection. As the University of Minnesota Community Service-Learning Center (n.d.) cites, “service-learning practitioners and researchers alike have concluded that the most effective service-learning experiences are those that provide ‘structured opportunities’ for learners to critically reflect upon their service experience” (para. 2). There are many forms that this reflection can take (see Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Eyler & Giles, 1999), but oral discussion, followed by a structured portfolio including a journal and reflection paper, produces quality reflection from our students. The reflection begins with a one-paragraph abstract articulating the main goal and activity, the goal as voiced by the community, and the learning development for both themselves and those served. The paper then responds to the following questions: • • • • • • • • • • • •
What are the complex problems that you address? How did you address these? How are you part of the solution? What did you observe? What did you feel? How did you grow personally? What did serving others teach you about yourself? How were you transformed? How were those you served transformed? What did service-learning teach you about society? What went well? What would you improve?
Only reflection will bring change as Michel Foucault (2000) stated that “I’m an experimenter in the sense that
As made clear by the ways reflection includes various forms, assessment must address different forms of evaluation and feedback, making sure to assess benefits to all participants.
Advantages and Challenges In addition to enjoying the experience, students come into contact with others of various backgrounds or native French expertise. In many ways, this population was invisible to the university students until this service-learning course. Other advantages include a concrete project that they can share during future job interviews, a heightened awareness of the communicative and dynamic value of the target language and of its use in authentic situations in which both they and their interlocutor are invested in the outcome, and an occasion to deeply reflect and potentially transform their way of thinking. In teaching others, students review grammar and pronunciation rules, learn effective teaching techniques, and build self-confidence.
Challenges Before beginning a service-learning program, however, one cannot overlook certain challenges. Scheduling While attendance may vary in typical courses, in servicelearning situations, this can be a challenge. In a creditbearing course, however, missing a community-engagement session produces a negative consequence on the student’s grade. Over the years, absences have not been a problem— students understand that if they are forced to be absent, they are obligated to provide a qualified substitute. Other potential scheduling issues involve the organization of projects, the coordination of activities, transportation, and the coordination of students’ schedules. For French Day, another layer of scheduling difficulties occurs: The setting of deadlines sufficiently in advance, the enforcement of those deadlines, and the necessity of sending reminders to local teachers can prove challenging. Organization Students quickly learned that registration needs to be very well staffed as each group arrives en masse, and that teachers need to provide names ahead of time. In addition to preassigning students to the learning table groups, it is wise to use a color system on nametags to indicate preordered T-shirt size.
31. Integrating Service-Learning Into a University Modern Languages Program–•–231
Dealing With Administrators and Selecting Sites Principals have their own style of leadership and speed of response. Once a principal is on board, however, it is a blessing, as coordination of future opportunities is much easier at that school. Helping university students to choose which service-learning opportunity will best fit them can also be challenging, but it is exciting when placements work well. Several of my students find and arrange their own service-learning projects, often at a school they previously attended. Such initiative is ideal but cannot be assumed. Teacher Response For French Day, the number of activities, the setup of the space to be used, and many other details require knowing how many participants will attend. Teachers were slow to respond to requests for numbers of students and to send in their checks for the T-shirts. One teacher never registered, but some of her students appeared anyway. Event organization organizing must be flexible. Meeting Expectations Meeting expectations, whether their own or those of teachers, participants, or their classmates proves challenging. In addition, despite the efforts of reciprocal goal setting and inclusion, feedback after the event showed a great variety of expectations. Some teachers desired the entire event to be in French (although there were many participants with rudimentary French). Finding Native Speakers in Need of Service According to Polansky (2004) and Jacqueline Thomas (2012), finding opportunities for students to interact with
References and Further Readings Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in servicelearning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 179–185. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Foucault, M. (2000). Interview with Michel Foucault. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power (pp. 239–297). New York, NY: New Press. Furco, A. (2002). Is service-learning really better than community service: A study of high school service program outcomes. In A. Furco & S. H. Billig (Eds.),
native speakers of French is an exceptionally difficult task. However, I meet native speakers through my daily life—in the grocery store, though colleagues, or in a restaurant. In engaging with them, I learn of others in need. Thus, even in Green Bay, which definitely qualifies as an “area with limited native speaker populations [italics added]” (Polansky, 2004, p. 372), a little effort goes a long way. For instance, a locally based French-owned firm employs native speakers (who come from France with their families for one- to three-year stints). These families frequently live in a local suburb, and the children enroll in public schools. Continuing the Program Given the larger use of English in a service-learning course compared to other French courses, some French teachers wonder what gets lost in continuing the program. Some universities do not actively support or even recognize service-learning. And, finally, both creating and dealing with choice challenges some. According to Alice Terry and Jann Bohenberger (2007), however, “the more choice and voice you give students, the greater their commitment to their service-learning experience” (p. 20).
Conclusion Service-learning courses prove invaluable to a foreign language program. Students engage in their learning, thereby improving their skills and knowledge. Students form new collaborations, encounter new populations, learn more about themselves and others, assume leadership roles, and feel a sense of ownership for their own service-learning project. Such positive outcomes will hopefully inspire others to implement service-learning projects with their own students.
Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy (Advances in Service Learning series, Vol. 1; pp. 23–50). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Gascoigne, C., & Osborn, S. F. (2012). Creating servicelearning opportunities in French for future teachers. In J. Thomas (Ed.), Étudiants sans frontières [Students without borders: Concepts and models for service-learning in French] (pp. 1–10). Carbondale, IL: American Association of Teachers of French. Harper College. (2014). Service learning overview. Retrieved from http://goforward.harpercollege.edu/services/ involvement/civic/overview.php Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in today’s higher education. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 3–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
232–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES Jacoby, B. (2002, October 10). PARE model. Retrieved from http://evergreen.loyola.edu/rcrews/www/sl/archives/oct02/ msg00067.html Karasik, J. (1993). Not only bowls of delicious soup: Youth service today. In S. Sagawa & S. Halperin (Eds.), Visions of service: The future of the National and Community Service Act. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center and American Youth Policy Forum. Kendall, J. C. (1990). Combining service and learning: An introduction. In J. C. Kendall (Ed.), Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Modern Language Association Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/flreport National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1999). Standards for foreign changed language learning in the 21st century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. NEA Education Policy and Practice Department. (2010). Global competence is a 21st century imperative. Retrieved from www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/PB28A_Global_Competence 11.pdf Partnership for Twenty First Century Skills. (2011, March). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_ framework_2-pager.pdf Pessate-Schubert, P., Thomas, D., & Lehman, K. (2006). Lessons learned in service-learning: Personnel preparation
through community action. Mentoring & Tutoring, 14(1), 67–79. Polansky, S. G. (2004). Tutoring for community outreach: A course model for language learning and bridge building between universities and public schools. Foreign Language Annals, 37(3), 367–373. Riley, R. W. (2000). Changing the American high school to fit modern times. In C. M. Logue, & J. L. De Hart (Eds.), Representative American speeches, 1998–1999.Vol. 71 (6) Communication, education, and the art (pp. 185–194). New York, NY: H. W. Wilson. Sigmon, R. L. (1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist 8(1), 9–11. Sigmon, R. L. (1994). Linking service with learning in liberal arts education. Washington, DC: Council of Independent Colleges. Terry, A., & Bohenberger, J. (2007). Service-learning by degrees: How adolescents can make a difference in the real world. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Thomas, J. (2012). Enhancing undergraduates’ knowledge of French by teaching others: A summer camp for 4th and 5th graders. In J. Thomas (Ed.), Étudiants sans frontières [Students without borders: Concepts and models for service-learning in French] (pp. 25–30). Carbondale, IL: American Association of Teachers of French. University of Minnesota Community Service-Learning Center. (n.d.). Reflection in service-learning classes—Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.servicelearning.umn.edu/info/ reflection.html
32 PERFORMING ARTS AND COMMUNITY EXCHANGE JANNA L. GOODWIN
AMIE DOWLING
Regis University
University of San Francisco
P
erforming Arts and Community Exchange is a course at the University of San Francisco (CA) that puts traditional undergraduate (“outside”) and incarcerated (“inside”) students on an equivalent footing in a creative learning and performance space. In this chapter, we describe the course (hereafter referred to as PACE), laying out the background, foundations, commitments, community partnerships and other relationships, questions, and challenges that the course entailed and explaining steps in the process, from inception and implementation to assessment. We reflect on the experiences of the students, teacher, directors, institutional and organizational partners, incarcerated and formerly incarcerated artist, participants, and audiences, inviting readers to embrace the challenges and potentials of well-run, campus- and community-based, learning and performance collaborations.
Morgan and her associates had been active in San Francisco jails for more than 2 decades with Resolve to Stop the Violence Project (RSVP), a rehabilitation program and its Manalive curriculum (see Figure 32.1). Manalive incorporates physical awareness as a way of exploring when and how violent behavior arises and giving participants tools to intervene when it does (Resolve to Stop the Violence Project, 2008).
A Role for Performing Arts in Violence Prevention The design of PACE was a yearlong endeavor. Its creator, choreographer Amie Dowling, then-assistant professor of dance in USF’s innovative Performing Arts and Social Justice (PASJ) program, researched arts organizations involved with the San Francisco jails, contacting Ruth Morgan, the executive director of Community Works (CW), a nonprofit organization in Berkeley, California. CW’s mission holds that the arts have a vital role to play in engaging individuals, families, and communities and intervening where the impacts of incarceration and violence are potently felt (Community Works West, 2013).
Figure 32.1 Reggie Daniels, Resolve to Stop the Violence Program, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department SOURCE: Amie Dowling.
233
234–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
Somatic training is a core component of this instruction, based on the understanding that violence is a physical act, and that—by noticing the sensations preceding and accompanying a violent act—an individual can choose not to act on those impulses. This type of somatic awareness is directly aligned with what performing artists do when making creative physical choices. The unit in San Francisco County Jail #5 where PACE was offered had been using the Manalive curriculum, therefore, the men who volunteered to participate as inside students came in with a vocabulary and understanding of group process and an awareness of their physical impulses and their bodies as sites of information.
Learning, Lori Pompa cites Ira Shor and Freire (1987) when she notes that, through a critical pedagogy, “the professor learn[s] along with the students, not knowing in advance what [will] result, but inventing knowledge during the class, with the students . . . The material of study is transformed. The relationship between the professor and the students is recreated” (p. 86). Pompa acknowledges the challenges, among them the imperative to remain sensitive to the inevitable power structures that arise. PACE makes these challenges explicit and integral to student learning outcomes.
The Course Review of Literature As sociologist Erving Goffman (1959) observed in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, people are performers whether we recognize it or not: For example, we protect face and perform status and other dimensions of social relationship daily when in the presence of others. The recognition of this, combined with purposeful performance, can help us acknowledge, accept, and even change those aspects of self that may be stigmatized, marginalized, or otherwise discredited. In more recent decades, practitioners, researchers, and scholars around the globe (e.g., Boal, 1985; Cohen-Cruz, 2005; Dowling, 2011; Goodwin, 2005; Hillman, 2001; Rohd, 1998; Stone, Bikson, Moini, & McArthur, 1998; Van Erven, 2001; Wali, Severson, & Longoni, 2002) have proposed and substantiated the many ways in which participation in expressive art forms produces knowledge and transformation. Theater and dance in particular and the collaborative creation of devised work (that which emerges from rigorous, ensemble processes reflecting the experiences of participants as well as the teaching artist-performer relationship) draw relevance from a wide range of disciplines. Moreover, performance practices cultivate body and spatial awareness, other-centeredness, and communication competence. Theatre and dance foster the exploration and development of alternative behaviors, relationships, and self-images. PACE’s pedagogical approach finds resonance with the views of John Dewey, Paulo Freire, and like-minded social philosophers of the 20th century. By experientially upsetting the dynamics of the teacher-learner relationship to the extent possible within a traditional institution, the course challenges what Dewey (1916) called “static, cold-storage . . . knowledge” (p. 186) and counters Freire’s (1970) famously derided “banking system of education” (p. 77), in that wisdom and insight are understood to reside within each of the students. The professor develops goals and a syllabus but, while bringing expertise, questions, and resources to the table, does not claim to have all the answers nor seek to distribute knowledge. In the 2002 Michigan Journal of Community Service
The institution’s offices of Service Learning and Student Learning Assurance worked with Dowling in developing the learning goals and outcomes in order for it to meet the needs of both the outside and inside students. These included • develop a creative space within a jail; • form a strong artistic ensemble that collaborates on the creation of an original dance/theater/music piece; • develop a critical and working vocabulary regarding the facilitation of community-based art; • understand community-based arts a tool for social change; • place life experiences in a larger social context; and • stimulate intellectual self-confidence and interest in further education.
Additional expectations, responsive to the goals of the PASJ department, were • develop an understanding of the history, theories, principles, and key practitioners of North American community arts; • explore the interrelationship of community-based arts to critical and theoretical issues of race, culture, economics, and politics; • develop a critical and working vocabulary regarding the facilitation of community-based art; • understand community-based arts a tool for social change; and • engage with local community cultural resources.
Student learning outcomes were to • demonstrate verbally and in writing an understanding of the nature and role of community-based arts (assessed through class discussions, community site facilitation, papers, and written reflection); • demonstrate an awareness and understanding of the social and political context surrounding community-based art workshops and performances (assessed through papers, written reflections, discussions, and community site facilitation); • articulate through a studied, engaged, and informed process of reflection an understanding of service-learning
32. Performing Arts and Community Exchange–•–235 experiences (assessed through papers, written reflections, and discussions); and • develop a grant for a performance project that incorporates community and social engagement (assessed through the final project).
Comix; Michael Rohd’s (1998) Theater for Community, Conflict and Dialogue; and The Sentencing Project’s (2008) Reducing Racial Disparity in the Judicial System.
Dialogues
Assignments, Dialogues, and Other Experiences Inside students were provided a copy of the syllabus. Limitations of resources and time constraints, however, precluded the same assignments for them, so their participation looked different. Outside students posted essays on a website not accessible to those inside, and outside students learned dialogue strategies, workshop development, and facilitation. Inside students (who were already developing conflict management skills through the Manalive curriculum) joined in the exercises and dialogues, helped frame conversations, and, importantly, shaped rehearsal and performance processes. Written Assignments These included, but were not limited to the following (quoted from the assignments as they were worded for students): Experience with the judicial system paper. Description: “This paper focuses on your thoughts, ideas and the facts you know about the judicial system. Please include statistics, any personal stories that you wish to share, and how the media depicts prisons, jails, and ‘criminals.’ Consider how these depictions have informed your understanding of prisons/jails, incarceration, and who is imprisoned.” Theatre Bay Area CA$H Grant. Description: “Using Theatre Bay Area’s CA$H Grant, you will design an imaginary Community Arts project and apply as an independent artist for funding to support your work. We will NOT be submitting these to Theatre Bay Area.” A handout was provided outlining the specific requirements. Site class reflections. Description: “Reflections and reactions to each class taught at the jail will be turned in by Sunday at noon of the following week. In these reflections, please comment on what part of the class was effective, what was not, what could have been done differently, and other reactions that you had about the experience. Responses are to be posted on the Blackboard site.” Screenings and Readings For outside students, videos and readings provided a context for discussion and assisted in an understanding of incarceration. Reading assignments included Jan CohenCruz’s (2005) Local Acts: Community-Based Performance in the United States; Angela Davis’s (2003) Are Prisons Obsolete?; Lois Ahrens’s (2008) Real Cost of Prisons
Outside students had two weeks of on-campus classes to reflect together before entering the jail. One of the first questions Dowling asked was, “What have you heard about this class and what are your expectations?” Responses ranged from, “I am worried about going into a jail,” “My parents are concerned,” and “I’m wondering what [the incarcerated men] think is going to happen.” In 2009, when one student expressed strong reservations, Dowling assured him he would not be required to go into the jail, but encouraged a discussion: “What are some of your thoughts about the jail? Why do you feel you might not want to go?” The class talked about who they imagine they will meet. “We know it’s a male facility,” Dowling said, “So, we know it’s going to be men. How old do you picture them to be? What race? What does a college student look like? What does a person who is incarcerated look like?” and “Where do these ideas come from?” During the first week, Dowling had similar preparatory discussions with the inside students, asking questions such as, “What has your experience been with ‘formal’ education? With college?” or “What have you heard about this class? What does a college student look like? Who do you imagine meeting in this class? What race? Where do you think they grew up? Where do these ideas come from?” The two groups would later talk together about some of these topics, which would inform artistic decisions and provide a framework for understanding challenges and conflicts that might arise in the tricky process of collaboration. The outside group’s first jail meeting was an orientation, held in the jail’s administrative office where students were introduced to the Manalive curriculum. Returning to campus, students wrote a short essay about their first day at the jail and posted these on the class website. A week later, they composed a reflection on their personal experiences of the judicial system. Responses to one another’s essays illuminated preconceptions, co-created a common experience, and laid the groundwork for continuing experiences as the semester unfolded. The first week that the class (outside and inside) met as a whole group, they talked about the concept of service. The approach to service-learning used in PACE was a reciprocal sharing. The outside group was not viewed as “helping” or “teaching” the inside students, nor was the converse seen to be the case. Rather, all were understood to be learning together. The group discussed characteristics or experiences around which communities form and are defined, both for members and for those who are excluded. One prompt was, “When you think about the word, ‘community,’ what comes to mind?” Answers varied, from stories about community “categories” in which the groups felt they belonged—for example, Catholics, college students,
236–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
men, fathers, artists—to definitions. More questions surfaced: “What makes those groups ‘communities’?” Responses included such things as shared values, identities, practices, age, race, and class. Dowling emphasized that all participants can influence the quality and character of the experience. She encouraged them to recall their own experiences as facilitators, guides, or teachers and to think about times they had learned from others. Exercises Given the intimate and physical nature of the work, parameters and rules were essential for the class to merge as a unified artistic ensemble under the conditions mandated by the setting. Such constraints, especially when their practical purposes were made explicit, importantly helped all students to understand that the jail (and Dowling, in her role as teacher) would maintain a safe emotional and physical environment. Some rules were imposed by the jail, while others were Dowling’s, and some were created by the group, that is, “Take care of your own bodies during the physically active portion of the class. Engage in the exercises to the best of your abilities that day. No cross talk. The decision to read and show your work is up to you.” Below are two exercises from early in the semester. Brainstorm 1. On a flip chart or whiteboard write the word PRISON in a circle. Ask participants to name the first thing that comes to their mind when they hear this word. Emphasize that there are no right or wrong answers. Record all participant responses in web-like spokes extending from the center circle. 2. Encourage a range of responses by asking participants to think about associations they have with the word—the associations may be from their own experiences, from the media, or from sensations or feelings they have when they think about prison as a physical place. 3. Once you have a good collection of words, ask a volunteer to read a selection of the words to the group. 4. Now choose, or have a participant choose, one word with strong, active connotations, for example, confinement. 5. Ask participants to create a simple movement in response to the word. Encourage a range of options, including literal interpretation or associative. They may hold one position on the floor or move through space; they may engage one part of the body or the full body. Use all the options available; nothing is too small or too large to try. The facilitator may want to give examples to start. 6. Encourage participants to pay attention to the connections between movements that they viewed and made and the words that were generated during this brainstorm. Explain the concept of movement metaphor defined as an action, movement, image, or figure of speech that literally denotes
one idea, used in place of another to suggest an analogy between them.
Social Barometer 1. Hang signs on opposite sides of the room that read “Strongly Agree” and “Strongly Disagree.” 2. Then read a series of statements about the issue of mass incarceration. Suggested statements can include • The government should spend more money on schools than on prisons. • The criminal justice system is . . . racist/classist/ sexist/heterosexist/xenophobic. • People in prisons should have the same basic rights as everyone else. • Once someone is put in prison, that person will never succeed in life. • Prisons make our streets and our communities safer. 3. After each statement is read, ask participants to share their opinions on that statement by moving to different areas of the room: If they are neutral, participants can stand in the middle of the room; if they agree but not strongly, they can stand between the middle of the room and the “Strongly Agree” sign; if they disagree but not strongly, they can stand between the middle of the room and the “Strongly Disagree” sign; and the “stronglys” will stand next to their respective signs. 4. When this process is completed, call on one person from the “Agree” side of the room, one from the “Disagree” side, and one from the middle of the room to share their opinions. During the discussion, if participants’ opinions change, they may move from their original position to the new one.
Workshops, Rehearsal, and Performance In the remaining weeks at the jail, inside and outside students exchanged personal histories, stories, and writing. Workshop style, they created a “movement vocabulary” and other ways of relating through vocalization and physicality. They developed a “script” (or “score,”) and began rehearsing toward a culminating performance, presented in the jail before an audience of other incarcerated men, staff, and invited guests, including social workers, law enforcement personnel, USF staff and faculty, and the performers’ family members. The performance was videotaped and distributed to all participants.
Assessment Considerations and Methods The Office of Student Learning Assurance at USF offers faculty assistance in formulating methods for gathering evidence of learning. PACE was unusual in the need to evaluate the course and its outcomes from the perspectives of both the outside and the inside student work. Building achievement measures for accurate comparison was challenging for PACE, given the significant differences
32. Performing Arts and Community Exchange–•–237
between the two groups, especially as one group lacked the personal freedoms enjoyed by the other. The major issue was discovering comparable measures for these two groups while still addressing the course’s desired learning outcomes. Both the syllabus and teaching methodology for the outside students included frequent written responses to readings, to prompts on the class website, and to class conversations held both in the classroom and at the jail. But, constraints of jail accessibility precluded some measures, such as interviews, regular videotaping, and writing exercises. Surveys and recorded dialogues that revealed convergences or differences in perspectives on each question were used instead. The final class was a videotaped, guided conversation that invited comments from both groups regarding their experiences in the program. A preliminary review showed that both groups were affected in similar ways by their work together. Across each group, experiences and emotions turned out to be very different from what students had expected going in. Both groups reported that they had to push their comfort zones in dealing with preconceptions and stereotypes about the other group. Student evaluations and other feedback indicated positive growth for all participants, exemplifying Dewey’s (1936) all-important “consummatory experience” of engrossment and transformative immersion and theatre director Peter Brook’s (1968) “liveliness.” For a more in-depth look at outcomes (and exercises) about PACE, please refer to Janna Goodwin and Amie Dowling (2012).
is a model for this integration of performing arts, community exchange, and service-learning.
Conclusion
Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago, www.crfc.org
By supporting the Performing Arts and Social Justice program and major, under whose aegis the PACE course flourishes, leadership at USF was an inspiration for faculty, students, the community, and other institutions of higher learning, creating a beacon for those seeking an education rich in opportunities for creative expression and expanded horizons. Such visionary thinking, committed resources, and effective intra- and interorganizational cooperation are crucial to building and managing the multiple relationships described in this chapter. As challenges to higher education move it increasingly online, and, in a cultural and economic environment where theater and dance programs have been threatened into near-extinction, it is imperative to reconceptualize performing arts as they are taught and learned. This means neither discarding the classics nor forsaking training, rigor, or professional development—but conscientiously, farsightedly, and sustainably broadening the concept of development to envision social roles for artists (and students both outside and in) as innovative agents of change. PACE
The Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago (CRFC) develops K–12 curriculum materials on civic engagement. They include lesson plans for all grade levels on the disproportionate involvement of people of color in the justice system, inequities in federal drug sentencing laws, juvenile justice, court outcomes, and racial profiling. The site includes background information on each issue, discussion questions, and a classroom activity.
Authors’ Note: This chapter is adapted from Goodwin, J., & Dowling, A. (2012). Performing Arts and Community Exchange (PACE) and the fulfillment of the Ignatian educational promise. Jesuit Higher Education: A Journal, 1(1), 46–72.
Resources Chicago Prison Industrial Complex Teaching Collective, http://chicagopiccollective.wordpress.com The Chicago Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) Teaching Collective teaches about the prison industrial complex, including a PIC 101 Curriculum, a great list of fictions and realities about the prison system. Building Blocks for Youth, http://cclp.org/building_ blocks.php This resource provides statistics on juvenile justice, including overrepresentation of youth of color in juvenile corrections facilities, zero-tolerance policies, and the privatization of juvenile corrections. KQED’s The Lowdown: California’s Prisons Site, http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/special-packages/ californias-prisons Multimedia resources about prison reform, a wealth of interactive images, and a downloadable educator guide are provided and could be used for instructional and research purposes.
Prisonersolidarity, http://prisonersolidarity.org/ educational.htm This site is designed to create less distance between those on the inside and those on the outside of prisons. It provides research, news, and opinion from activists, writers, prisoners, and the concerned public. Many resources are geared toward a college classroom. Radical Math, www.radicalmath.org Resources to help teachers integrate social and economic justice issues into their math lessons are developed and offered.
238–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
References and Further Readings Ahrens, L. (2008). Real cost of prisons comix. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Boal, A. (1985). Theatre of the oppressed (O. Leal-McBride, Trans.). New York, NY: Theatre Communications Group. Brook, P. (1968). The empty space. New York, NY: Touchstone. Cohen-Cruz, J. (2005). Local acts: Community-based performance in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Community Works West. (2013). Mission/Vision. Retrieved from http://www.communityworkswest.org/index.php/ missionvision Davis, A. Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? New York, NY: Seven Stories Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Perigree Books. Dowling, A. (2011). 59 places: Dance/theater in the Hampshire jail. In J. Shailor (Ed.), Performing new lives. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday Goodwin, J. L. (2005). Applied theatre in corrections: Community, identity, learning and transformation in the facilitated, collaborative processes of performative, artistic praxis (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAI 3163669) Goodwin, J., & Dowling, A. (2012). Performing Arts and Community Exchange (PACE) and the Fulfillment of the
Ignatian Educational Promise. Jesuit Higher Education: A Journal, 1(1), 46–72. Hillman, G. (2001, December). A journey of discouragement and hope: An introduction to arts and corrections. Community Arts Network. Retrieved from http://wayback.archive-it .org/2077/20100906195256/http://www.communityarts.net/ readingroom/archivefiles/2001/12/a_journey_of_di.php Pompa, L. (2002). Service-learning as crucible: Reflections on immersion, context, power, and transformation. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 67–76. Rapt Productions. (2011). Untitled [Video file]. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/25871254 Resolve to Stop the Violence Project. (2008). Programs. Retrieved from http://www.resolvetostoptheviolencesf.org/ programs/offender.html Rohd, M. (1998). Theatre for community, conflict & dialogue: The Hope is Vital training manual. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The Sentencing Project. (2008). Reducing racial disparity in the judicial system. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject .org/doc/publications/rd_reducingracialdisparity.pdf Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Stone, A., Bikson, T. K., Moini, J. S., & McArthur, D. J. (1998). The arts and prosocial impact study: Program characteristics and prosocial effects. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Van Erven, E. (2001). Community theatre: Global perspectives. London, UK: Routledge. Wali, A., Severson, R., & Longoni, M. (2002, May). The informal arts: Finding cohesion, capacity and other cultural benefits in unexpected places. Chicago, IL: The Chicago Center for Arts Policy at Columbia College.
33 EVERYMAN, SERVICE-LEARNING, AND COLLABORATION DANA E. ASPINALL Alma College
N
ot so long ago, scholars of English Corpus Christi cycles and morality plays noted how these dramas call for community building. While they agreed with earlier scholars that the plays’ anonymous authors sought from their auditors guilt-ridden recognitions of sin and of the price their savior paid for them, recent readers also observed concerns for social stability, interclass harmony, and protection and providence for the disadvantaged. In other words, mystery and morality play writers addressed their audiences’ treatment of others just as seriously as they did individual contrition or salvation. Viewed from this more comprehensive perspective, the motivations that propelled these spectacles reveal remarkably modern qualities, especially in their commitments to a common good. That the plays’ authors linked audience members one to another and urged compassionate care among them evinces, for instance, a dawning awareness that communal efforts such as these plays could sustain not only Christian piety and charity but also the economic growth of certain guilds as well as the city they occupied. In addition, these staged representations of citizens acting together for a common good, as well as their efforts to encourage sustained interactions between a municipality’s denizens, reveal equal emphases on egalitarianism, social mobility, personal change, and the conviction that salvation depends largely upon the integration of oneself into the social fabric. These motivations also inform the theories and objectives comprising service-learning projects proliferating across university campuses today. A closer look at mystery and morality plays and service-learning sheds instructive light on these plays’ parallel concerns with community development, prosperity, and unity. In essence, these early
dramas flourished because they inspired and sustained community-spirited collaborations between disparate groups: Their aim involved sending audiences—eager participants in the performances as well—back to their homes engrossed in self-reflection and open to the possibility of a different way of life. Implementing a service-learning component into a medieval drama course may illustrate compellingly how this desire for social wholeness brought medieval communities together and can inspire us similarly today. The spirit of community building and the desire for positive change that meet and mix in these dramas form the foundation for 21st century service-learning; therefore, service-learning projects focused upon the production of a mystery or morality play offer one of the best means of teaching these plays and bringing to light the desire to contribute to a common good that motivates them.
Medieval Conceptions of Community Building and Service-Learning Today Two features stand out when one considers the parallels between cycle and morality plays and modern servicelearning praxes: their mutual pursuit of a more cohesive and stable society (one grounded upon prosperity, benevolence, and inclusiveness) and their parallel reliance upon education to make this pursuit a reality. Play preparers and service-learning advocates alike maintain that a more perfect society hinges on collaborative efforts brought about through education, reflection on one’s place in the material world, and constant immersion in it. 239
240–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
Let us begin with an examination of the cycle plays. Nearly all scholars agree that mystery and morality plays provided concrete exempla that showed auditors the way to salvation. Performing “acts of corporal mercy” stood foremost among the instruction, according to Peter H. Greenfield (1990), and bound salvation “to participation in the community” (p. 104). The plays also emphasized fairness among all and encouraged “intense self-examination,” often through “reenactments of the Crucifixion in the city marketplace and the reliving of the lives and the sufferings of saints” (Stevens, 1990, p. 46). In Martin Stevens’s (1990) estimation, furthermore, cycles and moralities represent, among other developments, a “ubiquitous movement toward popular piety” (p. 46), one that values community, prosperity, and charity. Mervyn James (1983) concurs and describes how authors repeatedly created scenes where “social wholeness” became the “central emphasis” (p. 11) of the dramas, and where each play “promoted the prestige of the community with which it was associated” (p. 13), especially as concerned “cooperative action” (p. 19). Likewise, Greenfield (1990) describes how “what God value[d] in Christian souls” also held tremendous “value for the stability and the prosperity of earthly society” (p. 103). In morality plays such as Everyman, Elizabeth Harper and Britt Mize (2006) suggest, portrayals of events or characters frequently stemmed from a “sociocritical strain” of instructive literature and were “understood within contexts investing them with cultural meaning” (p. 296). One’s “behavior rather than the private life of the soul” (p. 265) becomes the focus in Everyman, largely because of the play’s “active, community-sustaining manifestations through the sacraments of the church and social charity” (p. 299). Everyman’s author, then, wants the audience to understand its “obligation is stewardship, not contrition” (p. 277), and that the “concept of donation” (p. 263) should rule all behavior. Roger A. Ladd (2007) likewise perceives that in Everyman, “material charity” and “Good Deeds” (p. 67) lead to salvation: A conceptual shift occurs in Everyman, Ladd argues, wherein “a much more specific understanding of good works, one tied to the action of physical charity” (p. 71), compels its auditors to consider and amend their routines. The lesson Everyman teaches involves a steering away from earthly gain and toward “material charity, Good Deeds” (Ladd, 2007, p. 64) that benefit others. We all stand guilty of avarice and of turning our backs on our neighbors’ needs, the play tells us, and the penance that soon follows acknowledgment of our guilt becomes the moment in Everyman that holds individuals both responsible to their community and accountable for their actions before God. In short, the play urges individuals to reflect upon such behaviors and to take action in service to others. Everyman follows an explicit educational paradigm then: At first we witness Everyman in denial of his situation; then, we eavesdrop on his epiphanic interactions with
Knowledge, and finally we see his total commitment to Good Deeds as he casts out—or has stripped away from him—his Goods, Beauty, Strength, Wits, and all else he once cherished. All the while we watch Everyman wriggle, suffer, and eventually understand himself, we also reflect upon our own desires and selfish isolation from our neighbors and fellow citizens. Let us now turn to service-learning theory and its concomitant emphasis upon benevolence, community, and self-reflection. In Janet Eyler and Dwight Giles’s (1999) phrase, service-learning essentially involves “capturing student interest” (p. 8) in “social problems” and ushering them into challenged communities fully engaged in “social action” (p. 11). Such community immersion, James Carignan (1998) adds, may “encourage” among students “habits of engagement with others” and foster a lifelong “responsibility to serve society” (p. 43). And if implemented properly by educators, as the study conducted by Christine Stensen, Eyler, and Giles (2003) suggests, these habits begin immediately and can last well beyond a student’s matriculation—“service-learning positively impacts students’ plans to perform future community service hours” (p. 211)—even when no monetary compensation, extra credit consideration, or course credit is offered in return. And while many observers still view the “ability” for service-learning courses to help “achieve the civic mission of education” as “promising” rather than “proven,” (Billig & Eyler, 2003, p. 262), a growing number of proponents view its implementation in courses as an effective means of inspiring long-lasting and life-changing habits of social responsibility and community service. Student involvement with those who occupy different social or economic ranks also creates stronger connections between education and citizenship, Eyler and Giles (1999) argue, and initiates a “transformative learning experience” that may foster “fundamental changes in the way students view service or society” (p. 17). As studies of the correlations between pedagogies of engagement and citizenship proliferate, evidence increasingly suggests that educators can enhance students’ “intellectual dispositions” in areas such as cultural tolerance and “social conscience and humanitarian values”; they perhaps would find increased success if educators designed more “programs that specifically address the moral and civic development of their students,” according to Anne Colby, Thomas Ehrlich, Elizabeth Beaumont, and Jason Stephens (2003, pp. 113– 114). Colby et al. believe that two factors in particular increase the likelihood of “transference” of what is learned in an educational environment to broader contexts: to “make the context in which skills and knowledge are learned more similar to the settings in which they will be used,” and to “reflectively draw out principles that can guide and support that transfer, making them explicit and articulating their implications for the new situation or context” (p. 137). In addition, involvement establishes in students, according to Janice McMillan (2002), various
33. Everyman, Service-Learning, and Collaboration–•–241
considerations of “boundary negotiation—of knowledge, language, roles, place, identity, and meaning” (p. 56), all of which compel students to view their world more understandingly, and, subsequently, with more compassion and tolerance. A student’s “transformation of perspective” (Eyler & Giles, 1999, p. 133) occurs when action and reflection intermittently inform the service-learning process. Once students interact with other communities, they require “periods of reflection,” according to Robert Shumer (2002), “where hypotheses are generated about immediate and future meaning, and then tested through subsequent experiences and actions” (p. 184). Self-reflection may involve journal writing, teacher-directed self-reflective papers, or correspondence with community members with whom students establish relationships, among other possibilities. Desired outcomes include increased understanding of the world, enhanced critical thinking abilities, and a sharpened focus upon improving both the educational system and the culture itself (Eyler & Giles, 1999, p. 14).
Service-Learning in Practice: Performing Everyman While the parallels between medieval drama and servicelearning now strike me as obvious, I admit I did not recognize the connection until I participated—for the first time—in an experimental service-learning drama course (Introduction to Literary Analysis) for first-year students. Alma, Michigan, is home not only to Alma College, where I teach, but also the Masonic Pathways Senior Living Services, an immense complex of residences and assisted living facilities for the elderly. And while Alma College enjoys many ties to Masonic Pathways already, it offers only sporadic opportunities for sustained student-resident contact. For no other reason than a lifelong admiration for the elderly, I focused my service-learning project on a collaborative endeavor between students in my course and the Masonic Home residents. However, we would not only act for the residents; instead, we would invite them to act with us and teach them—as well as ourselves—how to act. The more I considered the expectations implicit in a servicelearning course, the more I realized that success, both in terms of student learning and value for the residents, hinged upon residents acting and learning alongside my students. I selected Everyman as our performance text because of its brevity (less than 1,000 lines, which members of our class shortened to about 800 lines) and its consistent appeal to audiences of all ages and walks of life. My initial paucity of knowledge in service-learning praxis was matched with an equal lack of knowledge of the recent scholarship, discussed earlier, that links morality plays to community service or conceptions of the common good.
At this point in my planning, in other words, I concerned myself with the same matters that I emphasize in any of my classes: close reading of texts, accompanied by extensive critical thinking and analytic writing. I placed Everyman in historical and generic context by also including on my course syllabus a few plays from the York mystery play cycle: The Creation and the Fall of Lucifer, The Creation of Adam and Eve, The Fall of Man, Cain and Abel, Noah’s Flood, Abraham and Isaac, and The Annunciation. I also assigned alongside these plays several critical and theoretical terms associated with medieval literature, and required students to gather working definitions of them, including allegory, folk play, mummer’s play, and Corpus Christi play. At the start of most class periods, I encouraged discussion by asking questions about the plays, especially as concerns the authors’ adaptations of Bible stories, characterizations, and the humorous plot twists and innuendos that so frequently imbue these dramas. Also early in the semester, I scheduled a time when Anne Ritz, Alma College’s service-learning coordinator, came to introduce service-learning theory to students. What Ritz emphasized in her discussion with the students involved Kerrissa Heffernan’s (2001) discipline-based service-learning model, which places students in a community throughout the semester in order that they reflect on their engagement and experiences and use “course content as a basis for their analysis and understanding” (as cited in University of Minnesota, n.d., p. 15). Such a model, obviously, echoes the conviction of Colby et al. (2003) that the most effective learning—as well as the best opportunity for transference of that learning into other contexts—takes place in settings that match environments where what is learned may be implemented in the future. It also reinforces a much more widely held belief that the possibility of students’ future civic engagement is enhanced when instructors provide reflective assignments where students equate their activities with others’ efforts to create a better community. The reflective component of discipline-based servicelearning also is found in the PARE model which combines reflection with preparation, action, and evaluation in a dual effort to increase student involvement in community building and to maximize learning (University of Maryland, n.d.). These two models provided the foundation and frame for all service-learning elements I incorporated into my Introduction to Literary Analysis class. I then invited Lisa Godfrey, volunteer/activity manager at Masonic Pathways, to visit our class and explain the residents’ situations and special needs. Godfrey also informed our class how she had begun recruiting resident volunteers to take part in the production and described their various personalities. In accordance with the protocols outlined in the PARE model, we devoted this and the next several days to preparing for our interaction and eventual collaboration with the residents and to forming a
242–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
community based on trust, mutual assistance, and the common goals of learning and service to others. The week after this meeting, students presented their research on various attributes and functions of mystery plays: themes and influences, Corpus Christi Day activities, and the plays’ influences on later drama. The presentations served as a graded assignment for those students not acting in our next interaction with the Masonic Home residents, a presentation for them of the York mystery play, The Annunciation. In combination with the close reading emphasis, this exercise helped prepare all members of my class both for the English major and for a more meaningful interaction with the residents. For our performance of The Annunciation, we invited the six participating residents to the smaller of our campus’ auditoriums (one participant eventually dropped out because of advancing memory and perception problems). After the residents were seated and comfortable, several students welcomed them and briefly explained mystery play cycles, including their goals, content, and their processions through the city. We then performed The Annunciation, in full costume and with backdrops and stage lighting. After our performance, another student, who also directed The Annunciation, explained to residents what we intended to do with Everyman. Students fielded questions and got to know the residents as we all shared refreshments. We ended our meeting by distributing photocopied scripts, in large, bold print, to the residents and assigning them parts. The largest parts in Everyman, of course, belong to the eponymous main character, as well as to God, Goods, Knowledge, and Good Deeds. The residents received these parts. Although somewhat daunted, the residents—the youngest was 75 and the oldest 91— seemed excited and energized by our project. I feel rather lucky because nearly all of my class (20 first-year students) leaned toward two majors: English or theater. Such a class body resulted in an almost universally positive response to the objectives stated on our syllabus (although many noted in their class evaluations the intensified work load that the course required) and paved the way both for stimulating discussions and generally cooperative attitudes. Routinely, I found myself acting not merely as teacher but also as facilitator of a project that assumed a life of its own—largely because students easily stepped into their assigned roles as actors, set designers, directors or stage managers, and researchers and worked in partnership not just for grades but to get the performance right. In essence, they learned how to create a performance out of nothing: While some students possessed acting or stage management experience, fewer knew much about conveying a message through drama and even fewer initially knew anything about mystery and morality plays. Yet, students took what they gathered from class and research and contributed it to this common endeavor. The students also saw in the residents an eagerness and energy for learning, companionship, and community. The residents’ quick devotion
to the project inspired my students and served as the glue for the permanent relationships they began to create with the residents. What also motivated students involved an awareness that their efforts focused on providing a product to someone else: They found themselves engaged in producing a performance that would edify another community. In other words, they felt connections not just between themselves but with those who depended upon them to learn how to produce a morality play. Before rehearsals with the residents began, I assigned each student a particular function: one director and one director’s assistant; one stage manager; seven actors, mostly filling the minor roles; three costumers; three lighting engineers; two acting coaches for the residents; and two prop designers. We invited the residents to campus one more time, to measure them for costumes, to arrange rehearsal schedules, and to address any emergent concerns. After this meeting, our class then fell into a routine much like any other class: We discussed during the beginning of each class any matters needing attention and then continued our readings and discussions of the other plays as assigned on the syllabus. Students regularly visited the Masonic Home during evenings, to construct sets, to adjust costumes, and to work with the residents, but I stayed away from these activities as much as I could, watching as students’ involvement with this community grew and bonds emerged. Students who were working on the set and lighting, for example, also noticed some residents struggling to keep their scripts in order. Without any prompting from me, these students worked to create script holders for the residents, which they could carry with them on stage and which looked like the leather bindings of Bibles: The residents appreciated not only these holders’ looks but the assistance they provided in keeping the script pages in order and flat in their hands. Our final performance, at the Masonic Home in their chapel during the college’s finals week, drew more than 100 auditors, including other residents as well as members of the Alma College community and friends and family of the student participants. Afterward, the residents hosted a reception for the students, where they expressed their appreciation to us and offered us gifts and remembrances. The performance ran long, almost an hour and a half, but proceeded with no complications.
Student Reactions: Rewards, Challenges, and New Views In addition to the reception and remembrances, students walked away from the experience with many new, and, hopefully lasting, perspectives, several of which involved literary study and analysis. First of all, students learned the intricate process of play production and theater
33. Everyman, Service-Learning, and Collaboration–•–243
management from an insider’s point of view. While we read, discussed, and researched these medieval dramas, we also produced two of them for live audiences not necessarily sympathetic to our efforts. Alongside the mechanical and physical challenges of play production arose some theoretical and directorial issues as well: Students learned the differences between mummers’ plays and saints’ plays, for instance, and, through their research and reflective essays, commented knowledgably upon the historical, cultural, and religious contexts that inform them, including the collaborative impulses and actions scholars recently have examined. As one student stated about the learning process, “I had to research mystery plays and understand them well myself so I could teach others.” In short, the collaborative process that playwrights, actors, publishers, and printers participated in throughout the early stages of English dramatic history came to life for the students of this class, for they witnessed firsthand the fluid natures of text, script, and performance and realized as well how important an audience can be to the success of any given piece of writing. Several students commented on how their interactions with the Masonic Home community “provided useful insight into the course material,” how engaging in “a concept in a real situation was useful to a career.”
Moreover, the collaborative spirit that pervaded my students’ semester-long preparations for performance and enhanced their understanding of both medieval drama and the nature of the stage also informed their relationships with the Masonic Home residents. Lasting bonds formed and developed between the college community and the Masonic Home residents. In addition to observations noting how “nice” it was to “work with the residents,” many students recognized and appreciated how their objectives involved “an opportunity to teach others about what we were studying” and the need to “educate the community.” Perhaps more importantly, while the residents learned about mystery and morality plays, as well as about acting, my students learned about the joys and challenges of aging, loneliness, declining mobility and health, and contributing to a greater good. With each visit to the home, with each rehearsal or conversation, students experienced a more engaging, representative social wholeness than their dormitories generally allow them and found themselves involved in a project that, just as these mystery cycles and moralities originally set out to accomplish, brought them closer to each other, introduced to them a much wider sense of inclusiveness, and encouraged them to seek out others in need.
References and Further Readings
McMillan, J. (2002). The sacred and profane: Theorizing knowledge reproduction processes in a service-learning curriculum. In S. H. Billig & A. Furco (Eds.), Servicelearning through a multidisciplinary lens (pp. 55–70). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Shumer, R. (2002). Service-learning as qualitative research: Creating curriculum from inquiry. In A. Furco & S. H. Billig (Eds.), Service–learning: The essence of the pedagogy (pp. 183–197). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Stensen, C. M., Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (2003). Service and motivation to serve. An exploration and model. In S. H. Billig & J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing servicelearning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts (pp. 195–212). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Stevens, M. (1990). Medieval drama: Genres, misconceptions, and approaches. In R. K. Emmerson (Ed), Approaches to teaching medieval English drama (pp. 36–49). New York, NY: Modern Language Association. University of Maryland (n.d.). Designing quality servicelearning courses: Preparing students for service. Retrieved from http://thestamp.umd.edu/leadership_community_ service_learning/academic/faculty_service-learning/ designing_quality_service-learning_courses University of Minnesota. (n.d.). Six models for integrating service-learning into the curriculum. Retrieved from http:// www.servicelearning.umn.edu/crimson/dependancies/ multimedia/f8d43710e6f864aac63045353d72f62a.pdf
Billig, S. H., & Eyler, J. (2003). The state of service-learning and service-learning research. In S. H. Billig & J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning. Research exploring context, participation, and impacts (pp. 254–264). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Carignan, J. (1998). Curriculum and community connection: The center for service-learning at Bates College. In E. Zlotkowski (Ed.), Successful service-learning programs (pp. 40–58). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens. Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Greenfield, P. H. (1990). Faith and prosperity: Cultural values in medieval drama. In R. K. Emmerson (Ed.), Approaches to teaching medieval English drama (pp. 101–105). New York, NY: Modern Language Association. Harper, E., & Mize, B. (2006). Material economy, spiritual economy, and social critique in Everyman. Comparative Drama, 40(3), 263–311. James, M. (1983). Ritual, drama and social body in the late medieval English town. Past & Present, 98, 3–29. Ladd, R. A. (2007). “‘My condicion is mannes soule to kill’— Everyman’s mercantile salvation.” Comparative Drama, 41(1), 57–78.
34 INFUSING SERVICE-LEARNING COLLABORATIONS IN MUSIC EDUCATION LOIS VEENHOVEN GUDERIAN University of Wisconsin–Superior
A
cademic service-learning (ASL) between higher education music education departments and community partners can result in mutually beneficial collaborations. Under the framework of ASL, there are many possibilities. As part of music education methods classes, ASL can serve and benefit both the local schools and preservice teachers in their development of skills, knowledge, understandings, attitudes, and pedagogical know-how for their future teaching. When programs are designed with conscious consideration of current professional national, state, and local educational needs, ASL can benefit a wide audience of individuals and groups. With that aim, this chapter describes processes and projects in ASL for music education with multiple purposes of serving schools and community, the music education profession, higher education, and students in higher education preparing to enter the teaching profession.
Background In recent years, the music education community in the United States has targeted several concerns that necessitate reform. These changes are grounded in societal and educational needs and trends. Current needs call for teaching and learning in a comprehensive, standards-based curriculum that includes emphasis on the development of children and youths’ skills, understanding and creative thinking in music, and understanding the connections between music and the other arts and subjects. Additional current trends emphasize the importance of assessment in music education, collaborative teaching and learning in music, learning
through experience, reflective practice, and improvement in teacher education preparation. National, state, and local trends reflect the profession’s growing recognition of the importance of the development of children and youths’ creative thinking in music through teaching and learning in music improvisation and composition. Before the turn of the century, few U.S. higher education institutions included music teacher preparation in how to teach and nurture improvisation and composition as part of a comprehensive curriculum for Grades K–12. Susan Byo (1999) found that among the most common concerns of music specialists and classroom teachers of fourth graders were concerns over lack of time to teach all of the national standards and lack of confidence in how to teach national and state content standards in music improvisation and composition. In a study by Katherine Strand (2006), educators confirmed these concerns. Similarly, when community educators were asked what kinds of programs would support teachers’ curricular goals and add to students’ experiences in music education, they responded with interest in programs that included teaching and learning in music improvisation and composition. Therefore, in order to serve the needs of community educators and preservice educators, the author of this chapter developed ASL programs and pedagogy that support these areas of music education. Additional ASL programs were designed to help novice and experienced educators develop understanding in how to incorporate and interconnect all of the national content standards in music into the design of curriculum and daily teaching and how to integrate music across the general education curriculum. 245
246–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
ASL and Preservice Teacher Education Ernest Boyer (1990) anticipated the demands of 21st century life and education and therefore the need for change in higher education teaching and learning. He pointed out that one of the necessary changes for a productive future society would be “a renewed commitment to service” (p. xii). Regarding a redefinition of scholarship in higher education, one that included civic service, Boyer was careful to make the distinction between citizenship activities and those acts of citizenship or service that were tied directly to a professor’s field of knowledge (p. 22). He advised that institutions “change their missions and relate the work of the academy more directly to the realities of contemporary life” (p. 13) and urged the academy to consider ways to synthesize theory and practice in teaching and learning contexts (p. 23). He also noted the need for integration of teaching and scholarship across subjects and contexts that would relate to life outside of the campus community (p. 75). Paul Woodford (2005) emphasized a need for recognition from within the music education profession claiming that music education should be for the public good. David Montano (2009/2010) reiterated Boyer’s ideas of pressing need for change within higher education to “engaged” institutions where teaching and learning was dedicated to the public good. “Challenges from accelerating social, economic and political complexities, including those intimately related to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in American society and in global interactions” call for change in higher education—for “liberal learning,” and [engaged] institutions “dedicated to [engaged] learning and to the public good” (p. 59). To further this view, Montano offers Kelly Ward’s (2005) idea that “support of the public good should include pedagogies of engagement, service learning, problem-based learning, and collaborative learning that can prepare students for civic lives that support the public good” (p. 62). In K–12 education, 21st century teaching and learning needs are reflected in initiatives in education at the national, state, and local level and in organizations that promote changes in curricula, pedagogy, and the learning environment to align with 21st century social, cultural, and educative requirements for successful living (Education World, 1996; Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994; National Association for Music Education, 2013; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2002). In teacher education, reconfigured requirements for licensing and the rise of national and state performance assessments confirm the claims that reform is recognized as necessary at all levels of educational endeavors. In efforts to adhere to the aforementioned needs, academic service-learning is gaining recognition as an effective pedagogy that holds potential for synthesizing academic learning goals with community needs and the civicminded development of higher education students for the good of all involved. In teacher education, carefully
designed ASL that aligns teacher preparation in course content and pedagogy with experiences in the field can fulfill Boyer, Woodford, and Montano’s urgings for teaching and learning in higher education that is directed toward the public good.
Learning Through Experience: ASL as Preservice Teacher Fieldwork Learning through field teaching experiences has long been recognized as one of the most valuable components in teacher preparation. John Dewey (1967, 1990) believed that learning through experience was cumulative. New understandings were the result of the sum of past understandings in interaction with present experience. The quality of an experience profoundly affected what individuals would synthesize into their understanding and how it would take shape in new understanding. Individuals’ learning experiences were also affected by their interaction with the physical and social environment (1967, 1900). Colleen Conway (2012) found that practicing educators’ self-professed views aligned with their earlier perceptions during their degree preparations. Preservice fieldwork was viewed as one of the most valued aspects of their preparation for student teaching and subsequently, life in the classroom. Margaret Schmidt (2010) also found learning through experience regarded as among the most valued aspects of teacher preparation by her students. Specific to ASL fieldwork for preservice teachers, in reflecting on their student teachers’ preparation for teaching music in the schools, Suzanne Burton and Alison Reynolds (2009) found service-learning to be a “powerful pedagogy in the education of preservice teachers” and transformative (p. 18). They found that as a result of their experience, preservice teachers consistently expressed a gain in confidence for future teaching. Burton and Reynold’s (2009) descriptions of four school and community-based projects included the account of a servicelearning project experience that proved to be transformative in a preservice teacher’s understanding of the impact cultural differences can have on teaching and learning. Ultimately, the experience led to the student’s pursuit of graduate study in ethnomusicology and her creation and contribution of a resource for general music educators. Warren Haston and Joshua Russell (2012) found ASL field teaching that required preservice educators to plan and implement lessons to have a “profound impact on their occupational identity” (p. 387). They suggested that university professors provide students with opportunities to teach in authentic contexts. Reynolds, Althea Jerome, Anna Preston, and Holley Haynes (2005) reported that the authentic teaching experience of 10 preservice music educators, in an ASL project with classroom teachers, had an impact on their ability to engage in reflective practice throughout and after their teaching experience in the following categories: “self-preparation, planning and
34. Infusing Service-Learning Collaborations in Music Education–•–247
teaching lessons, children’s responses to the teaching in regard to teaching effectiveness, reflective practice in different ways, and transitioning from being a student to a teacher” (p. 84). If the studies noted here are indicative of the value of learning through experience in contextually authentic preservice teaching experiences, and if such experiences can be designed in such a way that meet community needs, then higher education methods teachers might want to consider ASL pedagogy for preservice experiences in music education. This paper provides examples that align with these findings.
Institutional Commitment to Service-Learning The University of Wisconsin–Superior (UWS) is a comprehensive public liberal arts university in the University of Wisconsin system. The campus has developed a detailed initiative to provide UWS students with experiences rooted in the liberal arts tradition that exemplify the university’s mission. Academic service-learning is one of five designated liberal arts initiatives for the campus. At the UWS, substantial value and importance is placed on academic service-learning. Many organizations in the greater Twin Ports community (cities of Superior, Wisconsin, and Duluth, Minnesota) are well aware of the university’s commitment to ASL and welcome partnerships that provide vital contributions to the community as well as valuable career experiences for the university students. Opportunities for ASL are numerous at UWS, taking shape in different ways across departments. Many students participate in one or more organized service activities during the course of their undergraduate degree program. ASL activities and projects meet identified community needs and are designed in a way that the goals and experiences of the ASL align with course content and the desired student learning outcomes. Ongoing reflection during the ASL service experience is an integral part of the process. Course goals, outcomes, content, purpose, and essential questions provide students with a lens through which they can view, prepare for, and reflect on their ASL experiences. The applied, lived experience of the ASL work helps to deepen students’ understanding of course content and opens new understandings in civic engagement for the greater good (University of Wisconsin–Superior, 2014b).
Department Approach to Service-Learning The Music Department at UWS has a long history of civic engagement in the Twin Ports area in a variety of ways. Since 2009, several ASL programs in music education have been developed as another form of civic engagement
and way to serve the community. All ASL programs are designed to generate mutually beneficial results for UWS students and the participating community organization. There are a number of ways students in university music education methods courses and community schools and organizations can partner with beneficial results for all constituencies in the partnership. Whether a school or community need is brought to the attention of a methods professor or a need is recognized by the university department or a faculty member who is seeking collaborative, civic-minded, career preparation experiences for higher education students, programs designed to serve community needs and at the same time provide rich field teaching experience for preservice educators are possible. The following section highlights four of several ongoing ASL music education programs at UWS.
Service-Learning Programs: ASL for ChoralGeneral Music Education and InstrumentalGeneral Music Education Degree Students The university students who participate in the ASL programs are pursuing bachelor of music education degrees in choral-general music education, instrumental-general music education or both. Students participate in ASL fieldwork during the elementary and secondary general music education methods courses offered in separate semesters of study. In compliance with the degree tracks, the general music methods courses are designed to prepare preservice music educators with the necessary skills and understandings for teaching general music in Grades P–12. Students are assigned readings and written assignments in studies surrounding the unique mental, emotional, social, and physical needs of children and youths in various age groups; in studies surrounding general music education curricula within and as aligned to the frameworks of the Wisconsin state and national standards; in learning theories and approaches to teaching and learning as applied to music education for the targeted elementary and secondary age groups; creative thinking in music and ways to nurture creative thinking in children and youths via incorporation of music improvisation and composition into the general music curricula; and how to design interdisciplinary and integrated curricula and collaborative learning in music experiences within a disciplinary approach to teaching music. During on campus methods classes, the university students engage in, practice, and prepare instruction for field and future teaching. Students participate in at least two ASL field-teaching projects during each semester before engaging in a final project that is more student-directed. Brief descriptions of three initial projects/programs are provided here, followed by a discussion of the fourth and final experience. In secondary music education methods, in an ongoing ASL collaboration between the UWS Music Education Department and Great Lakes Elementary School, preservice
248–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
educators served as facilitators in fifth-grade smallgroup interdisciplinary learning, which involved creative writing and composing music. One to two preservice educators-facilitators were assigned to groups of four to six children. Under the supervision of the UWS professor and school music educator, the higher education students were given the opportunity to apply course theories and methods learned in class. Under the facilitating guidance of the preservice educators, the young students experienced 21st century learning goals—an opportunity to develop and apply creative thinking via collaborative problem solving in creative writing and composing. The facilitators used teaching and learning methods they had learned in their methods class to engage the children in the group work that required collaborative creative and critical thinking. The preservice educators also helped the young students to organize their practicing of the resulting poems and programmatic music compositions for a sharing-performance for peers. The children’s teacher, who had requested a collaboration that included teaching and learning in music composition, was able to experience professional development—becoming aware of additional practices for developing children’s creative thinking in music and other subjects—in her own classroom. In a second ASL program, secondary methods students made possible an after-school music composition class/ club at Superior Middle School. Under a program plan designed by the professor, the university students provided small-group and one-on-one teaching and assistance to middle school students in ukulele playing, song writing, and composing. In a third ASL program designed by the professor, university students, the professor, and school music educator provided fourth-grade general-music students with a sequentially ordered, national- and state-standards program that included all content areas of the National Standards for Music Education (Consortium, 1994) with emphasis in soprano recorder playing, music reading, and composing (Guderian, 2008). During the program, as is the case in all ASL music education methods programs mentioned or described here, the methods professor was part of the field experience and therefore had opportunities to reinforce course studies surrounding teaching and learning in schools. For example, the professor was able to make the university students aware of important aspects of teaching and learning in school contexts, and could draw attention to other workings of school life. This added to the preservice teachers’ development of professional understandings. After several days at the site, the preservice educators were given the opportunity to design and teach sequentially ordered lessons that would be a logical extension of the current program or apply what they had learned to a new site situation. The preservice educators usually worked in pairs or small groups to design their first lead-teaching experience.
Before and during the fieldwork, in class, the university students studied and discussed the particular ASL program syllabus and outline of daily teaching plans, priming activities, scripts, and specific duties for each participant at each site program (See Appendix A for the syllabus for this ASL program/project). In class, preservice teachers were able to learn and practice instructional strategies they subsequently used at the site, and in preparation for leadteaching experiences, shared plans and conducted peer teaching. Preservice teachers maintained reflection journals during the ASL teaching projects. During class, when not at the site, discussions as to what went well and what could be improved, added, or modified were ongoing. Abbreviated plans were sent again via email before the site visit as a reminder of what to expect and what to prepare. Thus, the plans and the preparations for the ASL teaching programs were an outgrowth of course content, provided examples for the students, and modeled the desired course outcomes for teaching and learning in music. During the initial ASL experiences of the semester, the university methods professor, a former music educator in the schools, usually teaches the first segment of the ASL music education project in order to establish context for both the young students and the university students, to provide a teaching model for the novice teachers, and to give the program a solid start. The first segment entails the first one third to one half of the very first day of the program. This is often accomplished by establishing the groundwork for the program, usually via a whole group priming activity for the young students inclusive of methods of inquiry to immediately engage the children’s interest, thinking, and doing. The school music or classroom teacher is another vital part of the initial work with the young students: demonstrating and providing a model of how to manage teaching and learning events in the classroom and making sure that the project/program runs according to the school’s schedule and rules. Observing during this first part of the program is beneficial to the preservice teachers as they are able to see how schools and classrooms “work,” how the ASL plan takes life, how the theories and pedagogical teaching and learning practices learned in class play out in classroom contexts, and how to go about teaching to the developmental needs of particular age groups. For the university students, this is another part of the overall fieldwork learning experience during the semester—one that is entered into their ASL fieldwork reflection journal. Preservice teachers’ observations, evaluations, and feedback to the university professor become a part of class discussion off site before the next site visit. After the professor establishes the music education context and content for the program in the first part of the first day of the project, the responsibility of the teaching and learning is turned over to the preservice teachers. With an ASL program of this kind of design, one that takes place before the preservice teachers are experienced enough to
34. Infusing Service-Learning Collaborations in Music Education–•–249
plan and provide lead-teaching at the onset of the program, the responsibility of the preservice teachers is as such: In individually or paired teaching groups, preservice teachers organize and facilitate the planned, hands-on activities for the children who have been assigned to small groups. The activities are an applied extension of the initial contentand context-building priming experience. For example, in the teaching and learning in recorder playing, music reading, and composing, the preservice educators serve as small group tutors-facilitators making sure that during and after the whole group instruction and activities provided by the university professor and school music educator, the children are holding the instrument correctly, covering the holes with the correct fingers, have what they need to compose their own pieces, and so on. The teaching and learning activities are such that small-group learning under the direction of a teacher-facilitator or tutor-facilitator helps to advance the learning and likely the meaning of the experience and gives each child the opportunity to participate in ways that will build musical skills, understanding, response and creative thinking in music in a more substantive way than what opportunities are possible under the usual classroom ratio of one teacher for many students. In this way, the preservice educators provide a valuable service for the children and their teacher. During this portion of the ASL project work, the university professor and often the classroom or music teacher circulate, providing scaffolding where necessary to both the young students and the university students. The university professor is also able to make notes for methods class reflection, discussion, and feedback—both group and individual—that will be provided for the novice educators off site. A fourth ASL program description follows. After experiencing at least one ASL program whereby the university students serve as facilitator-educators, for the culminating field experience of the semester, the university professor sets up a project based on the curriculum needs of a partnering educator in a 4K (age 4 kindergarten) class and provides a framework of the overarching goals, outcomes, and organization of the project. The university students set the daily goals and design sequential lesson plans and assessments. Thus, the final ASL fieldwork program moves the novice educators’ preparation to enter the profession to a higher level of responsibility and experience. For example, the novice educators in both music education and elementary education degree programs prepare and provide weekly, integrated music education classes (music with other arts and subjects) for 4K programs that have no music educator assigned to the 4K site. After consulting the 4K educator as to curriculum themes, the university students and professor work together inside and outside of the methods class to identify the necessary content for the lessons, and the preservice educators organize and plan the particulars of instruction, develop materials to support the instruction, and make daily plans that follow a logical
sequence of teaching and learning—each one based on the previous lesson designed and carried out by classmates. This program meets a state and local community need by providing music education for a portion of the 4K children in the district. The program also provides 4K children with grounding for the music education they will receive in the schools in Grades K–12. In this program, preservice educators meet course goals of learning how to integrate music into the curriculum in a way that aligns with and supports Common Core State Standards in music and other subjects, apply pedagogies learned in class, and apply skills and understandings in methods for teaching in music such as how to engage children in developmentally appropriate singing and instrument playing. In the case of the 4K ASL project, music teaching and learning is aligned with the Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards with emphasis on the development of children’s ability to match pitch and develop the singing voice, tap or move to a steady beat, and respond to listening to music through movement.
Service-Learning Program Principles The success of the ASL programs outlined earlier is based on underlying principles: (1) Alignment of the project goals with a targeted community need and/or the curriculum goals of the partnering school; (2) Alignment with the goals and student learning outcomes of the methods class; (3) The quality and organization of the preparation process; (4) The willingness and perceived value of the school/community partner to collaborate; (5) Preparation of the school/community for the collaboration; and (6) Reflection, evaluation, and discussion throughout and after the experience.
These principles have contributed to the success and sustainability of our programs. In preservice teacher education, ASL field experiences provide higher education students with opportunities to apply content knowledge they have learned in their classrooms in authentic teaching and learning contexts while fulfilling the needs of the community. It is through fieldwork experiences that preservice teachers most often begin to make sense of the methods course content and begin to make shifts in understanding between “self and task-concerned practice to student-impact concerned practice” (Miksza & Berg, 2013, p. 45). A variety of experiences in contexts that are representative of the targeted teaching career should be ongoing in undergraduate preparation and
250–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
exemplify a progression through stages of preparation and learning. In the ASL teaching and learning described here, preservice teachers progress through four stages of preparation and learning: (1) methods class studies, preparation, and interactive learning in the classroom; (2) participant observers; (3) assisting as facilitators and tutors in projects planned by the professor; and (4) planner-lead teachers at a site. In order to help students make connections between their various learning experiences and to help them begin to recognize and understand key components of effective teaching, the methods course observation forms and lesson plan formats align with the formats used to design ASL programs and with the course goals and student outcomes. Although teaching and learning involves a dynamic interplay between thinking processes that are based on learned skills and thinking processes that require on-the-spot creative thinking, accommodation, modification, and assimilation according to the situation, the following is given as an interactive list of preparations with adherence to sequential ordering of experiences that are provided higher education students in their fieldwork preparations for teaching at school sites. The description reflects a summary of the process from the onset of preparation at the beginning of the semester when students are inexperienced, throughout the field experiences, and to the end of the semester.
Preservice Teachers’ Order of Preparations and Activities 1. Development of content knowledge and applied methods activities, peer teaching experiences, and practicum preparations in the classroom 2. Observations of established teachers in contexts similar to those of the upcoming fieldwork viewed through the lens of course studies and inclusive of written observation and reflection 3. Mixed participatory involvement as participant observers and as assistant-facilitators and tutors at the first experience sites 4. Sharing in the teaching responsibilities under the university methods professor’s guidance; paired and small group research and planning resultant in student-generated sequentially ordered plans for a site 5. Preservice lead-teaching and implementation of original plans at the site supported by whole group peer participation and implementation 6. Three written reflections: (a) Students reflect on their ability to conduct fieldwork in course content prior to all of the experiences, (b) students reflect after their first experience where they serve as facilitators in the teaching and learning, and (c) students reflect on the culmination of the field experiences including those that involve the students’ independent work of preparing original plans and teaching at the site.
Organizing School and Community Partner Preparation and Collaboration Whether a faculty member identifies a need in the community or a need is identified through contact from a community organization, follow up by one or more faculty members is necessary to determine the interest in a partnership and to establish a meeting time to discuss the possibilities. In going about the process of planning a project, it is the author’s policy to ask first, especially when it concerns the schools, “What are your needs?” “How can we help?” “What kind of project would support your curriculum and teaching and learning needs?” After hearing the partner’s responses, the author of this chapter might suggest several possibilities or brainstorm with the partner—usually a music educator, classroom teacher, or administrator—in deciding on a project that will benefit all members of the collaborative partnership. Scheduling is the first item for consideration to make sure that a plan will be possible given the schedules of the partners. To this point in time, the author has designed and organized the various programs according to the need or the desire of the teacher(s) at particular schools, and according to the goals and desired student outcomes for particular university music education methods courses. The plan is then sent to the partner for input and approval. In the long run, this saves the partnering teacher or organization time, and it helps everyone involved to see a working out of ideas of the project on paper inclusive of the purposes, order and timing of events, and who is responsible for doing what. Since most of the ASL projects are school based, the syllabus and lesson plans for the project are completed following the same criteria as is expected in the profession for effective planning and teaching and according to the course requirements for the preservice teachers as they plan their own lessons. Thus, the ASL project plans designed by the professor serve as a model for the preservice educators as they learn how to design lesson plans and as they progress to the role of lead teachers at sites. During the projects, the partnering teacher, university coordinator/methods professor, and preservice educators work together sharing in the responsibilities of preparing and teaching. Plans include specific duties as outlined for everyone involved. The atmosphere is truly one of a “community of learners.” We are all learning and working together.
Students’ Reflections and Evaluations Students who participate in ASL teaching and learning consistently reflect on how much they have learned from the experience. The following is an example common to recorded comments as derived from the reflection papers, ASL evaluations, and course evaluations.
34. Infusing Service-Learning Collaborations in Music Education–•–251 I got a lot from this experience and got a lot of insight on my future teaching practice. The [my] perception of this fieldwork would have been way different prior to this course. I would have gone in completely blind and probably would have tried [controlling] situations a little more instead of allowing them [the fifth graders] to be creative and trusting that they would come up with their haikus on their own. A lot of our classes stress standards this and that. By taking this course and doing the fieldwork, it has opened my eyes to see that standards can be met by having fun, moving around, and assessments do not always have to be boring for the children.
And, from another preservice elementary educator I learned many things from this experience. Children love music and want to be creative. There is a big difference in reading about these activities in a textbook and actually being in a classroom and doing them with students. Our coursework lined up with what we were doing in the classroom almost exactly.
In all cases of several projects conducted in the schools and community, partners ask us (university professor and preservice educators) to return. Comments and results have been very positive as to the learning benefits for the young students. The children demonstrate enthusiasm and interest in the learning and are fully engaged. The children look forward to our visits, participate fully in the music education programs, and as one university student put it in reflection on the fifth-grade interdisciplinary composing project, “the compositions they come up with are amazing.”
Conclusion
desire in others to be engaged in ASL work. In music, numerous engagements and collaborations between faculty members and the community are possible. Collaborations on the part of the faculty in partnering with community members can develop a “community of learners” environment in departments that result in very positive outlooks and understanding in what it means to be a civic-minded faculty working for the public good. For example, for the fourth- and fifth-grade programs described earlier in the chapter, faculty members and students at UWS collaborated in order to provide the young students with a capstone performance experience at the university directly related to the content and instruction as experience during the project at the school site. This added another layer of understanding and experience for the young students’ learning in music. Collaboration between faculty members and students in ensemble courses made the concert experience possible. Faculty and students were involved in the preparations with the understanding that what they were presenting was a professional performance experience of what the young students had experienced in hands-on learning during the ASL experience with the methods students. As John Saltmarsh and Sherril Gelmon (2006) aptly stated, the collaboration required 1) faculty individuals with community-based experience including a faculty member who had been teaching courses and incorporating academic service-learning; 2) positive, prior-developed relationships with community partners in order to facilitate community partner involvement in the planning; 3) Institutional support and commitment as to the value of community-based scholarship and civic engagement. (pp. 34–35)
Needs in society should have an impact on the teaching and learning goals and outcomes in higher education. A change is necessary in higher education from “my work” to “our work” toward this cause and the awareness of school, community, and societal needs. Understanding and growth in awareness of current needs can evolve over time in higher education faculties. Early collaborations of some faculty members can influence the eventual acceptance or
When civic mindedness and the greater good are practiced at the institutional and faculty level, just as preservice teachers learn content knowledge and pedagogy through example and experience in ASL fieldwork, so will they follow the lead from their professors in civic mindedness. They will learn civic mindedness by example and experience and in so doing pave the way for new and better ways to live and to serve their fellow humankind.
References and Further Readings
Music Education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(2), 111–123. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards in arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Conway, C. (2012). Ten years later: Teachers reflect on perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrator regarding preservice music teacher education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(3), 324–338. Dewey, J. (1967). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press. (Original work published 1916)
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Burton, S., & Reynolds, A. M. (2009). Transforming music teacher education through service learning. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 18(2), 18–33. Byo, S. J. (1999). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to implement the National Standards for
252–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society; The child and the curriculum (Centennial Ed). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1900) Education World. (1996). State standards. Retrieved from http:// www.educationworld.com/standards/state/index.shtml Guderian, L. V. (2008). Playing the soprano recorder: For school, community, and the private studio (Rev. ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Guderian, L.V. (2011). Music in the elementary classroom, K–6. Lake Zurich, IL: LoVeeG Publishing. Guderian, L.V. (2012). Music improvisation and composition in the general music curriculum. General Music Today: Journal of the National Association for Music Education 25(3), 6–14. Haston, W., & Russell, J. A. (2012). Turning into teachers: Influences of authentic context learning experiences on occupational identity development of preservice music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(4), 369–392. Jorgensen, E. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Miksza, P., & Berg, M. H. (2013). A longitudinal study of preservice music teacher development: Application and advancement of the Fuller and Brown teachers-concern model. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(1), 324–338. Montano, D. R. (2009/2010). Academic citizenship and schools of music in twenty-first-century “engaged” universities dedicated to the public good. In G. Stanley (Ed.), College Music Symposium, Journal of the College Music Society, 49/50, 59–64. National Association for Music Education. (2013). Core music standards. Retrieved from http://www.nafme.org/ my-classroom/standards/core-music-standards/
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2002). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Reynolds, A. M., Jerome, A., Preston, A. L., & Haynes, H. (2005). Service learning in music education: Participants reflections. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 165, 79–91. Saltmarsh, J., & Gelmon, S. (2006). Characteristics of an engaged department: Design and assessment. In K. Kecskes (Ed.), Engaging departments: moving faculty culture from private to public, individual to collective focus for the common (pp. 27–44). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Schmidt, M. (2010). Learning from teaching experience: Dewey’s theory and preservice teacher’s learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(2), 131–146. Strand, K. (2006). Survey of Indiana music teachers on using composition in the classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 154–167. University of Wisconsin–Superior. (2014a). About UW-Superior. Retrieved from http://www.uwsuper.edu/aboutuwsuperior/ profile.cfm University of Wisconsin–Superior. (2014b). Academic servicelearning [AS-L]. Retrieved from http://www.uwsuper.edu/ aboutuwsuperior/liberal_arts/asl.cfm Ward, K. (2005). Rethinking faculty roles and rewards for the public good. In A. J. Kezar, T. C. Chambers, & J. C. Burkhardt (Eds.), Higher education for the public good: emerging voices from a national movement (pp. 217–234). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Woodford, P. (2005). Democracy and music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Appendix A ASL Syllabus for Music 386 (Sample of ASL Syllabus as Aligned to Course Goals) University of Wisconsin–Superior Lois Veenhoven Guderian, PhD Title: Grade 4 National and State Music Education Standards Project in Music Reading, Recorder Playing, Singing, Listening to Music in Historical and Cultural Context, Creating Music through Improvising and Composing, and Technology Assisted Learning in Music Phase I Syllabus Program developed © 1999 by Lois Veenhoven Guderian. Adapted to ASL in 2009 by Lois Veenhoven Guderian Phase I of the full program © 2009: Used by permission Great Lakes Elementary School 4th graders (GLE students) and University of Wisconsin–Superior (UWS) Bachelor of Music Education in Choral-General and Instrumental-General degree programs enrolled in Music Education 386: Secondary General Music Methods, Grades 4–12 Designer/Facilitator of Project: Dr. Lois Veenhoven Guderian Partnering School and Teacher: Mrs. Jori Walt, Music Teacher, Great Lakes Elementary School, Superior, Wisconsin
34. Infusing Service-Learning Collaborations in Music Education–•–253
Description: A standards-based teaching and learning experience that engages preservice educators and children in teaching and learning in music. This project addresses, incorporates and interconnects teaching and learning in all of the National Standards and Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for Music Education. The syllabus below represents the first portion of the project. University of Wisconsin–Superior preservice educators and 4th graders engage in a mutually beneficial teaching and learning experience of instrument playing (soprano recorder), music reading, music improvisation and composition via whole group, small group, and one-on-one instruction. In order to facilitate the children’s development of skills, understanding, and creative thinking in music, the preservice educators provide instruction and assistance to the 4th graders progressing from participant observers at the onset of the project to the role of assistants to the professor and school music educator, to eventually lead teachers at the site sharing in the responsibilities of planning, initiating and supervising teaching and learning of the learning segments in the curriculum. Benefit to UWS Students: Opportunity to develop and practice skills and understanding in content area of the degree program including all aspects of planning, instruction, and assessment. Benefit to 4th-Grade Students: Children will receive more opportunities for small group and individualized assistance in instrument playing, music reading, and composing due to the addition of UWS preservice educator helpers: The teacher to student ratio will be approximately 1 to 4 rather than the usual 1 to 25–30 for teaching and learning in recorder, music reading, and composing. Goals for UWS Students To develop understanding and skills in teaching and learning in music Grades 4–5 To develop understanding in how to plan, how to engage children in various methods of instruction and learning, and how to assess sequentially ordered standards-based instruction To develop understanding and knowhow in teaching and learning in soprano recorder playing To develop understanding and knowhow in teaching music reading in the Western notation system To develop understanding in how to nurture creative thinking in music in children Student Learning Outcomes for UWS Students UWS students will demonstrate ability to engage children in the following teaching and learning technical aspects of recorder playing: • UWS students will demonstrate how to engage children in learning how to hold the recorder. • UWS students will demonstrate how to engage children in learning how to cover the holes with the fingers and blow into the recorder. • UWS students will demonstrate how to engage children in learning how to play particular tones on the recorder (G, A, B, C, D). UWS students will demonstrate the ability to deliver the following sequentially ordered instruction in music reading: • UWS students will demonstrate ability in engaging children in learning how to follow the music from left to right. • UWS students will demonstrate ability in engaging children in learning how to identify, play, and count note values: quarter, half, dotted half, eighth, whole. • UWS students will demonstrate ability in engaging children in learning how to read music on the staff as provided in printed texts and from interactive whiteboard or charts. • UWS students will demonstrate ability in engaging children in learning how to notate music in the Western music system. • UWS students will demonstrate ability in engaging children in teaching and learning that results in recognition and meaning making of symbols in the Western notation system. UWS students will demonstrate understanding in how to engage children in activities that nurture their creative thinking in music including demonstrated teaching and learning techniques in • Inquiry: UWS students will demonstrate ability to nurture children’s creative thinking in music by asking questions about their (the child’s) work. • Modeling: UWS students will demonstrate ability in teaching and learning strategies that include modeling musical behaviors for purposes of question and answer improvisation and proper playing technique. • Scaffolding: UWS students will demonstrate scaffolding techniques for supporting children’s learning experiences in music improvisation and composition.
254–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
• Context Building: Through written observation and discussion, UWS students will demonstrate understanding in the purpose of context building and preparation for engaging children in experiences that require applied creative thinking in music. Goals of Project for 4th-Grade Students GLE students will learn how to play the soprano recorder: • How to hold the recorder • How to engage in playing the recorder: how to cover the holes with the fingers and blow into the recorder • How to play particular tones on the recorder (G, A, B, C, D) GLE students will learn the basic principles of how to read music in Western music practice: • • • • •
How to follow the music from left to right How to identify, perform, and count note values: quarter, half, dotted half, eighth, whole How to read music on the staff, in printed texts, and on interactive whiteboards or charts How to notate music in Western music notation (basic principles and introductory level) How to recognize and understand steps, skips, repeated notes, time signature, and various symbols of the Western music notation system
GLE students will demonstrate creative thinking in music: • GLE students will learn how to play several pieces on the soprano recorder. • GLE students will compose and notate a piece for soprano recorder. • GLE students will play their own piece and the pieces of other children on the soprano recorder. Student Learning Outcomes for GLE Students GLE students will demonstrate ability in how to play the soprano recorder: • Students will demonstrate the correct way to hold and finger five tones on the soprano recorder. • Students will play pieces of music on the recorder while correctly blowing into and covering the holes with the proper fingering on the instrument. • Students will play scales and pieces of music that contain the tones (G, A, B, C, D). GLE students will demonstrate the ability to read music: • Students will demonstrate understanding in music that to read music is to go from left to right by sight-reading and performing pieces correctly. • Students will identify, play, and count note values correctly: quarter, half, dotted half, eighth, whole. • Students will sight-read/play music on the staff, in printed texts, and on interactive whiteboards or charts, including music with steps, skips, and repeated notes. • Students will notate their compositions in the Western music system. • Via discussion, playing ability, and written assessment, 4th-grade students will recognize and demonstrate understanding in the functions of symbols in the Western music system, including time signature, staff, and treble clef. • Students will read and play pieces with notes G, A, B, C, D, and/or more tones. GLE students will demonstrate creative thinking in music: • • • •
GLE students will engage in a musical question and improvised answer game with their educators. GLE students will explore original musical patterns and ideas on the recorder. GLE students will compose and notate a piece for soprano recorder. GLE students will play their own piece and the pieces of other children on the soprano recorder.
Music 386 course goals that are addressed by this AS-L field experience (1) Development in the understanding of the unique mental, emotional, social, and physical needs of pre- and early adolescents (2) Development of comprehensive, action-based, general music education curricula within the frameworks of the Wisconsin State and National Standards for Music Education (3) Development of understanding in learning theories and approaches to teaching and learning as applied to music education
34. Infusing Service-Learning Collaborations in Music Education–•–255
(4) Development in pedagogical approaches to nurturing creative musical thinking in children; that is, ways to incorporate improvisation and composition into curriculum and lesson content in Grades 4–8 and high school general music curricula (6) Development of classroom management techniques (7) Opportunities for applied fieldwork experience that include observing, planning, instructing, and assessing (8) Development of preservice educators’ understanding and ability to design curriculum, to plan sequentially ordered lessons, instruct and assess children and youth in late elementary, middle school and high school classrooms according to state and national standards and initiatives Teaching and learning in the following national and state content areas as addressed in this portion of the project for UWS and GLE students 1. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music 2. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments 3. Composing and arranging music within specific guidelines (learning structures created by the teacher) 4. Reading and notating music 5. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music 6. Evaluating music and music performances Assessments (as evidence of student learning) GLE: Students’ demonstrated achievement in reading and playing of pieces—both text based and original GLE: Students’ notated compositions and ability to sight-read/play their own composition and those of classmates GLE: A written-music understanding assessment on the signs, symbols, and note values that were included in the children’s soprano recorder curriculum UWS: Professors’ completed rubric and feedback per preservice teacher on their field teaching UWS: Preservice educators’ demonstrated understanding/achievement in completion of written plans, design of instruction, and assessments according to the criteria of the assignment UWS: ASL reflections plus completion of the UWS students’ daily reflection journal This teaching and learning project includes National Standards Model Cornerstone Assessment: “a suggested assessment process, embedded within a unit of study that includes a series of focused tasks to measure student achievement within multiple process components.” Enduring Understanding: Everyone can learn musical skills and understandings that enable them to read, perform, create, and respond to music in meaningful ways Essential Questions: What motivates an individual to play or create music? SOURCE: Program developed © 1999 by Lois Veenhoven Guderian. Adapted to ASL in 2009 by Lois Veenhoven Guderian.
35 ART IN SERVICE-LEARNING Connecting Art and Community SOPHIA SUK-MUN LAW Lingnan University
S
ervice learning is high-impact pedagogy that demands knowledge transfer into the community, connecting university students and society with great variety and vitality. It provides students with knowledge that is relevant and applicable to daily life, engaging them with real social issues to foster a vision larger than selfinterest. With genuine critical reflection, the relevance and connection induces a learning experience that is personal and transformative. For art students, their subject knowledge allows them to see that art is about life and people, and most of all, art is a universal language that applies to all. There are increasingly more service-learning programs offered by faculties of art and design, architecture, urban design, and planning. More and more young adults adopt arts participation as a form of civic and social engagement. This chapter will share how a service-learning research scheme (SLRS) is used in a visual studies program elective course at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. The course, Art and Well Being, examines the intrinsic nature of art and its impact on the well-being of individuals and communities. Theories taught in the course are not only applicable in real-world situations but also can only be envisaged by engaging students in genuine creativity. The SLRS creates a platform for students to reify how art can be used as a language to facilitate expression and communication in community settings. Three versions of the SLRS have been structured, executed, and revised since 2009. The outcomes have benefited all stakeholders, including students, service clients, and community partners. Significantly, the SLRS
has had a more positive impact on students engaging with the community than would otherwise have been possible.
The Service-Learning Research Scheme (SLRS) Definition Robert Bringle and Patti Clayton (2012) defined competency-based service-learning “a credit-bearing educational experience in which students participate in mutually identified service activities that benefit the community” (pp. 114–115). The SLRS at Lingnan University enables students to execute and reify the theories being studied and formulate possible ways of applying their subject knowledge. A key factor leading to the success of these services relies on the process enabling the students to understand the subject knowledge in full, while at the same time contributing benefit to the community. In the arts and humanities, humans are the main concern and resources for learning. Subject knowledge can thus be maximized through interaction with people and communities. For example, Sally Harrison (2011) points out that the human landscape is a critical source for design that cannot be fully experienced in a studio setting. Direct encounters and engagement with communities are alternative and effective ways of bridging this gap for both teaching and learning.
257
258–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
History of the SLRS The Art and Well Being course was created as a visual studies program elective in 2008 to enhance students’ realization of the intrinsic nature of art as a language. In 2009, the first SLRS was integrated into the course to enhance students’ realization of the intrinsic nature of art as a language. Services in this course are no ordinary leisure activities but a series of well-designed creative workshops to facilitate expression for people in need. It took a year to establish relevant partnerships with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who have clients whose expression and communication could especially benefit from engagement that involves art and creativity. The first scheme in 2009 was optional. Seven students enrolled and completed the scheme in two teams, servicing two specific target groups–adults with cognitive disabilities and children of ethnic minorities. Data from evaluations revealed positive impacts on students, which in turn influenced the approval of a two-year teaching development grant to implement two more SLRS into the course in the following two academic years. The 2010 scheme was voluntary based involving half of the class, while the third in 2011 was mandatory to involve the whole class. Six services in total were conducted for various specific services clients, and more structured assessments and evaluations were designed and refined in the two years. The academic performance of the students enrolled with and without service-learning was compared.
Connecting Theory to Practice: Infusing Service-Learning Into Art Overview of the Art and Well Being Course The course focuses on the intrinsic nature of art as a language for expression and communication and how it can be used both to enhance the well-being of individuals and unite the community as a whole. The course content includes theories, hypotheses, studies, and clinical findings taken from a wide range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, art therapy, trauma study, and the philosophy of art. The interdisciplinary approach provides students with an integrated perspective on how art is related to our visual perception, cognition, memories, and emotions. With the understanding of these relationships, students will realize the intrinsic nature of art as a representation of our visual thinking embodied as a language written in images. The magic of art as a language of self-expression and its ability to unite a community can only be realized through the actual practices of art-making. The knowledge of the numerous theories and hypotheses concerning the flow and dynamics of processes of genuine creativity can be adopted and examined through a well-structured SLRS. It can be applied to people with language or communication
problems, as well as minority groups with language and cultural barriers. A series of carefully designed creativity programs for these specific clients provides real-life scenarios for the teaching and learning of using art in the community to help people in need. It also provides links between academic study and the community. A successful competency-based service-learning requires clear service goals built on the solid theoretical ground of the subject knowledge. In the Art and Well Being course, the framework is based on theories of art and well-being, learning theories, and participatory action research. Objectives The SLRS of Art and Well Being has clear service goals that are distinguished from ordinary leisure activities. All the services are structured to facilitate expression. The focus is on how thought can be liberated through creativity, how abstract ideas and feelings are presented and visualized in artwork, and how these expressions can be shared by the community. In the course of application and reification of their subject knowledge, the students face challenges and gain understanding of their service clients. In short, the SLRS aims to • promote a different teaching and learning experience for the teacher and students; • maximize students’ understanding of art as language through the process of art-making and images created; • enrich students’ imagination, artistic skills, and talents in organizing various artistic workshops; • promote students’ team spirit and problem-solving skills; and • enhance students’ sense of social engagement and commitment.
Theories of Art and Well-Being Art-making provides a nonverbal channel for selfexpression. It is a language written in images that transcends age, gender, and illiteracy. Evolved as an innate behavior of exploratory play (Alland, 1977), art inspires imagination and induces joy and satisfaction. The process stimulates senses leading to natural expression of inner thoughts and feelings. In all of the services structured in the SLRS, the intentional observation lay in the process as much as, if not more than, the final artwork. The image analysis emphasized not the artistic skills of the clients but rather the content of their visualized worlds. With examples of actual scenarios, the students can connect theories to practices. Learning Theories Effective learning of a subject is an accumulative process involving intellectual development and the acquisition
35. Art in Service-Learning–•–259
of new skills that provide students with a clearer and more concrete grasp of the subject knowledge. The mental conditions correlated to learning are identified by Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction, which starts with gaining attention and ends in enhancing retention and transfer (Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992). The process consists of two cognitive and affective domains (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Boud, Cohen, & Walker, 1993; Remnet, 1989). Educators should adopt a holistic view of learning by putting equal emphasis on the intellectual and the analytical, as well as on people as whole persons (Boud et al., 1993). Robert F. Kronick, Robert B. Cunningham, and Michele Gourley (2011) state that service-learning is an “adventure of facing emotional and intellectual unknowns” (p. 2). Students confront challenges in unconventional settings that create numerous unexpected circumstances. This experience induces an emotional and intellectual development that is unique and affecting. The direct engagement with the community turns conceptual learning into active experimentation. With well-structured planning, detailed observation, critical evaluation, and genuine reflection, the SLRS enables an active learning process, providing students with new insights into their academic knowledge. It connects students to the world and reality, expanding their perspective beyond academic achievement and self-interest. Indeed, a key value of engagement in education is the cultivation of altruistic vision. Education, as John Dewey (1990) advocated, should foster students’ “habits of positive service” and cultivate their “natural desire to give out, to do, to serve” (p. 15). Participatory Action Research Robert Chambers (2008) defined participatory action research (PAR) as a pluralistic orientation to knowledge making and social change. Its methodology shares many features with service-learning. There are at least seven common features shared by the two, including addressing the identified needs of the community, involving close collaboration between the community and the academic based on trust and respect, and inducing an integrative experiential learning process through a series of well-structured actions and practices (Blundo, 2003). Moreover, both provide insights into the complexity of social issues, resulting in knowledge gain for all parties. Significantly, both are defined by a process that is iterative, reciprocal, and reflective.
Community Engagement Preparation Forty students have enrolled with the three SLRS and completed eight services for five specific client groups, including ethnic minority children, adults with cognitive disabilities, youths with behavioral problems, adults with severe physical disabilities, and youths and children with autism. For most of the students, it was their first time in
contact with people of their service community, and the encounters induced emotional and intellectual challenges for the students. Students enrolled with the SLRS are required to take 10 to 12 hours of art facilitation training conducted by professional artists. Basic research about specific groups (e.g., autism and intellectual disability) is emphasized. A preservice site visit and information supplied by the collaborating NGOs are helpful for students’ consideration of specific concerns such as space and other constraints they might meet in designing their activities. Students are then grouped in teams of three to four to run their service under the guidance of a professional artist. They need to design, plan, and run a series of four to six creative workshops (10 to 12 hours in total) with a clear theoretical and thematic framework. Prior to each workshop, a clear session plan is prepared. During the workshop, students observe details of the actions and responses induced by the activities. If required, adjustment is made accordingly. Afterward, the team documents all of the observations and discusses future plans. In planning the workshops, students are required to structure artistic activities that could facilitate spontaneous expression. Creativities designed and executed in the eight services included drawing, painting, mask making, lyric writing, singing, dancing, and acting performance. These activities are often connected by a theme such as “selfportrait,” “our own song,” or “animals in the jungle.” Sharing of thoughts and feelings expressed by the works can promote better communication among all the participants. The last workshop is used to consolidate the expressions shared by the group and promote individual self-esteem as well as group identity. This can be done as a mini-exhibition of artworks or a performance show.
Assessment Students enrolled with the SLRS are required to complete pre- and postservice questionnaires designed by the Office of Service-Learning. The questionnaires are structured to indicate skill change in the following domains: subject-related knowledge, communication skills, organization skills, social competence, and problem-solving skills. Other assessments stimulate active learning through detailed planning, reflective observation, and critical generalization of the conceptual theories used in practice. They include • • • •
documentation of the session plans, two consultations with the faculty and staff of the OSL, group report-back presentations, and reflective essays upon service completion.
Session plans demand that the students use subject knowledge in setting objectives and making intentional observations in each workshop. Detailed documentation of the workshops records the course of the activities
260–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES
implemented and allows the students to revisit and evaluate the effects of their actions. The post-session reviews show the depth of the students’ reflective observations and their ability to think critically and solve problems. Along with the many real-life scenarios encountered, the two consultations allow the students to articulate their self-reflection both as individuals and as part of a group. Based on these real experiences, the consultations raise questions on the generalization of thoughts and values that can be linked to a larger context of different social issues. The presentation and reflection serve as an elucidation of what knowledge the students have integrated into their service and what the service means to them. Feedback from attending artists and NGO partners and responses and feedback from the service clients are also collected for evaluation.
SLRS Outcomes Evaluations of the three versions of the SLRS show that the service experiences have significant positive effects on the students in the areas of knowledge transfer, problemsolving skill acquisition, and social awareness.
Knowledge Transfer In structuring the framework of their workshops, the students were able to apply the intrinsic nature of art as a nonverbal language explicated in actions and images. In the case of ethnic minority children, the students designed activities to induce spontaneous expressions that revealed the thoughts and characters of the children. They employed imaginative themes such as jungle and animal walks to induce a joyful and free creative environment. For the adults with disabilities or autism, the students used sounds, colors, and touch to stimulate their clients’ senses. The following are just a few of the many reflective quotes of the students that indicate a successful knowledge transfer. Creativities break the language barrier between us [the students and Southeast Asian children]. Looking at their images is like entering their world of thought. Through creativities, we interacted with the children and they shared things with us—such as their family members, whom they like most, for example. In using different media to uncover their [youth] interests and inner self, I noticed that different mediums work better with different participants in the group. All these observations equipped me with better knowledge for organizing artistic activities for young people. One of the participants [with intellectual disabilities] cannot speak clearly . . . his drawing visualizes his thoughts and he could talk about his idea more clearly after the drawing.
The participant is [elderly and hearing impaired], and he was very passive in the first two sessions. But during the aluminum sculpture session, he seemed to be activated by the sense of touch, and became very active and totally engaged.
Acquisition of Better Flexibility and Skills in Problem Solving There is evidence that service-learning enhances students’ problem-solving skills, team spirit, critical thinking, and awareness of social issues (Batchelder & Root, 1994; Eyler, 2000). In all of the services, students were constantly challenged by unexpected situations requiring immediate attention. Detailed analysis of the session plans and reflections after the sessions showed that each group did their best as a team to ensure the smooth running of each workshop. They were able to identify emerging problems and make immediate or follow-up adjustments. In most situations, problems were resolved as a result of the students’ quick responses and thoughtful actions. The following are excerpts from the students’ reports. As some youths [with behavioral problems] came late and this affected the dynamics of the workshop, we needed to have flexible activity plans to control the flow and time management . . . Our original plan was to make a collaborative painting. We noticed that each [physically disabled] client has a different disability or limitation. Working on the same task might induce frustration to some of them. So we immediately switched the plan to individual creation instead. … There is a client [with intellectual disabilities] who demands special attention and guidance. So, while two of us are leading the group creativity, the third one will keep an eye on him and be ready to provide him with immediate attention without interrupting the whole group.
In one of the services, construction work was underway at the venue during the workshops. Given the resultant limited space, the students had to change their plan, which prevented the workshop achieving its desired outcome. Such decision making was puzzling and frustrating for the students, and in the consultation, one student lamented: Children are just born to be wild. We tried very hard to control the situation with all the kids running here and there, but this is against their nature. Their living environment is so unreasonable that they desperately enjoyed the opportunity to play and be free to express themselves. I felt happy to see them expressing themselves so freely but safety is a big concern. So, I felt sorry that we had to change the activity to something quieter such as painting to control the situation. I wished we could have had a larger venue but this was not our call.
The service was later cut from six to four sessions because safety had become an issue. This was totally unexpected by the students, but they came to realize that frustration was indeed a learning process, too. One of the members wrote, “I find it interesting to compare the actual outcome with the ideal outcome.”
35. Art in Service-Learning–•–261
Social Awareness The spirit of teamwork and the sense of sharing ideas, thoughts, and support in dealing with the challenges throughout the services enhanced the students’ social communication skills and awareness. Two reflections that were common among the students were a reduction in stereotyping and a better connection to “others.” One student said, Before the program started, I thought these youths [with behavioral problems] must be trouble-makers and difficult to communicate with. However, in my contacts with them I find them to be just as ordinary as I am. We have similar interests in computer games, fashion trends and desire for love. I believe I can make friends with them.
Other comments from students included, “I had an enjoyable experience with the [students with mental disabilities]. When I saw their beautiful images, I felt so happy,” and “My personal goal is to know them [Southeast Asian children] well one by one, starting from remembering their names which are quite difficult to pronounce and memorize.”
Conclusion This chapter focuses on the theoretical framework, criteria, and concerns involved in developing a credit-bearing service learning scheme through the use of art. The SLRS integrated into Art and Well Being demonstrated significant service-learning outcomes that could not have been attained in the classroom. In comparison with students who did not enroll with the scheme in the class, students with service-learning experience were much more motivated to bring up issues with examples of scenarios for discussion. The realization of theories through a series of unique intellectual and affective learning experiences enabled the students to experience a chain of reasoning
References and Further Readings Alland, A., Jr. (1977). The artistic animal: An inquiry into the biological roots of art. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman. Association of Commonwealth Universities. (2001). Engagement as a core value for universities: A consultation document. Retrieved from https://www2.viu.ca/integrated planning/documents/Engagementasacorevalueoftheuniversity.pdf Batchelder, J. C., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academic learning and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive and identity outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17(4), 341–355. Blundo, R. (2003, Fall). Participatory research and service-learning: A Natural match for the community and campus. The Journal
built on vivid references. Throughout the process, they were engaged in challenges they found relevant and meaningful. These experiences connected them to the world of “others” and provided insights into social issues. Significantly, the collaborative spirit and knowledge building induced a sense of joint ownership of work processes for the students (Jameson, Clayton, & Jaeger, 2011), prompting them to see the value of trust and team spirit. Indeed, most of the students became close friends with their teammates. In its report stressing the importance of engagement as core value for universities, the Association of Commonwealth Universities (2001), the world’s first and oldest international university network, defined engagement as the variety and vitality of university students’ interactions with society. With its intrinsic nature as a language, art is the best tool for engaging and connecting people through a nonverbal channel filled with fun and joy. Dewey (1963) elucidated that “works of art that are not remote from common life, that are widely enjoyed in a community, are signs of a unified collective life” (p. 81). Art in service-learning is valuable not for the skills it produces but for the vitality it facilitates through expression and communication. Timothy Stanton (1990) defined service-learning partly as a “reciprocal learning which determines the purpose, nature, and process of social and educational exchange between learners and the people they serve” (p. 67). Experiencing direct interaction with people of a specific community provides students with new ways of seeing the world and their personal efficacy in society. The impact is transformative and is reflected by the self-reflection of two students involved in the SLRS: “This is my first experience serving the disabled. I realize that nothing should be taken for granted,” and “We all live in Hong Kong, and shall care for each other. By doing so, we shall unite the society as a whole.” Art in service-learning empowers and connects people using respect and mutual understanding.
for Civic Commitment, 2. Retrieved from http://www.mesacc .edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue2/Blundo.shtml Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Introduction: Understanding learning from experience. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & D. Walkers (Eds.), Using experience for learning (pp. 1–17). Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Bringle, R. G., & Clayton, P. H. (2012). Civic education through service learning: What, how, and why? In L. Mcllraith, A. Lytons, & R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 101–124). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chambers, R. (2008). PRA, PLA and Pluralism: Practice and Theory. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 297–318). London, UK: Sage.
262–•–VI. THE HUMANITIES Chevalier, J. M., & Buckles, D. J. (2013). Participatory action research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry. Milton Park, UK: Routledge. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds). (2013). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment (Vol. 2A). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan. (Original work published 1938) Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1900) Dissanayake, E. (1995). Homo Aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Eyler, J. (2000). What do we most need to know about the impact of service-learning on student learning? [Special issue: Strategic directions for service-learning research]. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, pp. 1–10. Frith, C., & Law, J. (1995). Cognitive and physiological processes underlying drawing skills. Leonardo, 28(3), 203–205. Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College. Gardner, H. E. (1982). Art, mind and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York, NY: Basic Books. Harrison, S. (2011). Uncovering the human landscape in North Philadelphia. In T. Angotti, C. Doble, & P. Horrigan, (Eds.), Service-learning in design and planning (pp. 21–38). Oakland, CA: New Village Press. Harter, L. M., Hamel-Lambert, J., & Millesen, J. (Eds.). (2011). Participatory partnerships for social action and research (pp. 259–278). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Huzel, K. (2006). Challenging our students’ place through collaborative art: A service-learning approach. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(4), 125–134. Jameson, J. K., Clayton, P. H., & Jaeger, A. J. (2011). Community-engaged scholarship through mutually transformative partnerships. In L. M. Harter, J. HamelLambert, & J. Millesen (Eds.), Participatory partnerships for social action and research (pp. 259–278). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Kronick, R. F., Cunningham, R. B., & Gourley, M. (2011). Experiencing service-learning. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Mcllraith, L., Lytons, A., & Munck, R. (Eds.). (2012). Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. National Endowment for the Arts. (2006). The arts and civic engagement: Involved in arts, involved in life. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/ files/CivicEngagement.pdf Remnet, V. L. (1989). Understanding older adults: An experiential approach to learning. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Silver, R. (2001). Art as language: Access to thoughts and feelings through stimulus drawings. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Stanton, T. (1990). Service-learning: Grouping toward a definition. In J. C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning: A resource book of community and public service (pp. 8–16). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential Education.
PART VII THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
36 CULTIVATING THE SCIENCES WITH SERVICE-LEARNING AT A REGIONAL UNIVERSITY KRISTIN RIKER-COLEMAN, MICHELLE ARNHOLD, NICHOLAS P. DANZ, AND RANDY GABRYS-ALEXSON University of Wisconsin–Superior
A
dvances in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are critical for meeting the technological and environmental challenges of our time and the United States is experiencing a push to engage more students in these fields. National organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology stress that science education needs to be fundamentally transformed to prepare scientifically literate, engaged students. In recent years, service-learning (SL) has been used a pedagogical approach to engage students within the classroom and community. Because science courses are traditionally content based, some may view it as less appropriate for the integration of SL; however, the prevalent existing lecture and lab format of undergraduate science courses provides a perfect workshop for the integration of service-learning, whereby students take material learned in traditional lecture sessions and apply it to a real-life, higher stakes scenario, while fulfilling a community need. While there have been significant increases in the use of science-based service-learning courses and the availability of reference materials, there remains a need for descriptive case studies highlighting service-learning issues for faculty considering implementation.
Integrating Service-Learning in Science Coursework Motivation for inclusion of an SL project into a science course varies by course and by instructor, yet the reasons are similar to inclusion into a course in any field of study. Many motivations are pedagogically linked: SL projects reinforce content knowledge, provide a hands-on experience, and can provide an alternative grading instrument. SL projects allow students to take ownership of issues, making connections between what they learn in science courses and how to apply that knowledge to the world around them. When SL projects are undertaken in science courses, the projects can provide an explicit link between science literacy and stewardship of natural resources within the community. For successful integration into a college-level science course, SL projects must have a good match with a community partner and have a well-defined contract among students, faculty, and the community partners. Such a contract must be explicit in regard to the service, expectations for behavior, method of evaluation of student performance, and of quality of the product (Strom, 2009). The project must be significant enough in scope or time investment for
265
266–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
a meaningful experience for both the student learner and the community partner (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009), but not too big so as to overwhelm the course, replacing too much content. Furthermore, incorporating SL into science classes specifically poses unique challenges. Students who receive lab credit for a course are expected to practice scientific techniques in a hands-on way. Some science programs build upon the skills learned in a prerequisite course; if content is sacrificed in order to make way for an SL component, it is necessary to ensure that critical skills are not missed. Identification of a scientific “product” students can deliver in an SL project can sometimes be problematic. While students are testing out their skills or learning new skills, their measurements may be neither accurate nor precise. Projects with clearly defined objectives, clearly designed projects nested into the coursework, and effective assessment and evaluation of those objectives create a meaningful experience for all parties: student, faculty, and community partner.
This region has a population of about 150,000 people and serves as the largest inland shipping port in the United States. Poverty, obesity, and low K–12 educational achievement are dominant socioeconomic issues, whereas invasive species and Great Lakes stewardship are primary environmental issues. Within the Department of Natural Sciences, we recognize the unique challenges our community faces and have utilized SL as a vehicle to bring person-power and intellectual resources to the table as well as provide creative, thoughtful solutions to address and fulfill community needs. One of the biggest issues involved in incorporating an SL project within a course is finding the right match between the student learning objectives and available, meaningful projects. This chapter presents several ideas implemented from coursework in the Department of Natural Sciences at UWS, along with the successes and challenges we have met.
Service-Learning With a Regional Focus
Regional Service Projects in the Sciences
Our institution, the University of Wisconsin–Superior (UWS), serves a critical community role in the region of northern Wisconsin, northeast Minnesota, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan by offering educational and cultural opportunities to nearly 3,000 students. UWS is a public liberal arts college, the smallest of 11 comprehensive universities in the UW System. Many students are first-generation college students from rural communities or small cities. At UWS, SL is formally recognized as a credit-bearing, educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility. The SL program at UWS aims to make UWS a regional leader in SL, thus providing a distinctively public quality to UWS’s liberal arts mission. UWS hopes to create a system whereby a seamless progression of SL builds from the freshman to the senior level (Mangan, 2010). The general education program at UWS further supports the university’s educational mission by offering an interdisciplinary suite of courses with specific student goals, including communication, critical thinking, creative expression, diversity and global citizenship, and interdisciplinary connections. Within the Department of Natural Sciences, we strive to apply these goals by making science relevant to students’ lives. We want students to use scientific knowledge and process in their daily lives as community members and voters; when they make personal choices related to nutrition, health, or purchasing; and when they are faced with issues of environmental stewardship or appreciation of the natural world. Our university is situated in the far northwest corner of Wisconsin, serving the region of Superior, Wisconsin, and Duluth, Minnesota, at the western end of Lake Superior.
Dune Plant Restoration and Research in Nonmajors Botany In part due to high levels of rail and shipping traffic in the Duluth–Superior region, many invasive species have colonized natural habitats of the area and are becoming increasingly problematic. Invasive species have received well-deserved attention in curricular materials for elementary and middle school students (e.g., widely available references for purple loosestrife biocontrol) and outreach materials for government officials and the general public (e.g., Invasive Plants Association of Wisconsin, www.ipaw .org). Moreover, tens of millions of dollars have gone to environmental management agencies for restoration projects throughout the Great Lakes basin to remedy invasive species problems as part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Yet, methods to introduce invasive species issues into undergraduate curricula have lagged behind. In the City of Superior, a unique three-mile barrier sand spit known as Wisconsin Point separates Lake Superior from the estuary of the St. Louis River. Wisconsin Point is a protected area, with ownership distributed among a patchwork of several public agencies. Wisconsin Point is ecologically valuable because it harbors several regionally rare dune plant communities and yet it has come under siege from invasive plants in the last 30 years (Fraser, Belde, & Danz, 2012). One invasive plant in particular, spotted knapweed, is colonizing dune communities to the exclusion of native species. A recent cooperative management plan lists invasive species control and site restoration as main objectives (Northwest Regional Planning Commission, 2013). Working together in the fall of 2010, co-authors Nicholas P. Danz and Mary Morgan from City of Superior—the largest landowner on Wisconsin Point— developed a civic engagement project for integrating dune
36. Cultivating the Sciences With Service-Learning at a Regional University –•–267
plant research and restoration into Biology 111 Plants and People, a nonmajors general education science class at UWS. This course typically enrolls 50 students meeting three times per week for one hour in a large lecture hall, paired with a weekly two-hour laboratory session. The project aims to introduce students to issues of invasive plants and environmental management in Great Lakes coastal environments. Original course objectives were typical of a general education science course, revolving around students being able to demonstrate knowledge of basic plant biology and societal use of plants. We retooled course objectives to reflect a link between botanical literacy and personal decision making. For example, the primary course objective states that students “will be able to use scientific and cultural information to form, explain, and defend an opinion on current issues of civic importance involving plants, especially issues of environmental significance in the Great Lakes region” (Danz, 2013). The service project was intentionally connected to course content in lecture and laboratory periods. For a typical fall semester, lecture topics at the beginning of the semester introduce dune ecology and the concept of invasive species and their effects. Visits from local invasive plant experts and staff from City of Superior Parks and Recreation Department are used to prompt discussions of plant control methods and issues related to park management, including the tradeoff between invasive plant management and financial issues. Subsequent in-class discussions among students are further used to identify the roles of multiple stakeholders in protected area management and their likely perspectives. This combination of lecture and discussion is aimed at teaching students about the complexity of current environmental issues of societal importance in the Lake Superior region. Multiple laboratory exercises also focus on the civic project and link to course content. Two site visits to Wisconsin Point early in the semester during nice weather incorporate ecological census techniques for monitoring invasive plant density and distribution. Field minilectures are used to reinforce plant morphological concepts learned during lecture periods. Invasive plants are counted, collected, and returned to the laboratory using scientific recording techniques. Students visit the site once additionally on their own to remove invasive plants by hand pulling. Back in the laboratory, spotted knapweed fruiting heads are dissected and fruits are collected, sketched, and counted. Statistical estimates of seed density for the site are calculated and presented graphically. Insect predators of the fruiting heads that were released as biocontrol agents are also recorded. In spring semesters when Plants and People is offered, additional activities include planting conifer tree seedlings native to Wisconsin Point on the site to produce shade that will control the spread of spotted knapweed. Financial and curricular support for this community partnership was provided by the Great Lakes Innovative Stewardship Through Education Network (GLISTEN) administered by the National Center for
Science and Civic Engagement (2014). Reflection activities near the end of the semester are also critical to the project success. At the end of the semester, students write brief papers that reflect on their experience and connect it to potential new issues. For example, one reflection assignment asked students to comment on the scientific merit and their personal support for a hypothetical new policy requiring spray rinsing of all cars that enter Wisconsin Point to remove invasive plant propagules. At the end of the semester, anecdotal reports from students indicate the civic project was one of their favorite experiences. We have used the Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains (n.d.) survey (freely available at www.salgsite.org) to measure student-learning gains more formally. The survey is administered at the end of the semester and has shown substantial learning gains for all aspects questioned. Additional outcomes related to ecological restoration are also prominent: In five semesters, we’ve removed several hundred garbage bags of invasive plants and planted 1,500 tree seedlings. Human Biology and Anatomy and Physiology Courses Keeping the Community Healthy UWS is located in rural Douglas County where over 60% of adults are overweight or obese (Douglas County Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). Douglas County ranks near the bottom of Wisconsin counties (53rd out of 72) in overall county health (County Health Rankings & Roadmap, 2013). In health behaviors such as tobacco use, diet, amount of exercise, alcohol use, and involvement in unsafe sex, Douglas County ranks 63 out of 72. SL activities in the Human Biology and the Human Anatomy and Physiology courses were aimed at increasing the knowledge of community members related to the human body and educating the community in healthy lifestyle choices. Further, the Human Anatomy and Physiology course partnered with a local community coalition to specifically do some legwork to further the objectives of the coalition. Human Biology, a general education course aimed at nonmajors, covers the structure and function of the human body as related to areas of health and disease. Human Anatomy and Physiology (A&P) is a two-semester course for biology majors that examines the structure and function of the human body in greater depth. Students in these two courses use the presentation model of SL to teach other students and community members a component of what they have learned in class. This model of SL asks students to take material they are learning in a college course and generate presentations to teach the material they are learning to members of the community (e.g., Marquette Service Learning Program, 2014). In groups of two to four (depending on the size of the class), Human Biology and A&P students worked through multiple assignments in and outside of class to ultimately create an educational poster and a hands-on activity to be presented at a community
268–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
event. Students were challenged to take a complex topic they learned in class, break it down into its basic components, and present it to an audience of children and parents in approximately two to five minutes. The assignments used in these two classes were very similar. Students completed a series of written assignments in the months leading up to the presentation. In the first assignment, students selected three aspects of the human body they would be interested in presenting about. Potential topics included a range of material from how a cell functions to a specific organ in the body to an entire body system. Students described important anatomy and physiology of the topics they chose, briefly explained why they were interested in each topic, and ranked their preference of topics to present. Students also provided ideas of hands-on activities they could do with each topic. The instructor made the ultimate decision as to which topic each group presented, trying to match interests and topics as best as possible, but ensuring a range of topics was covered by the class as a whole. In the second assignment, students created a PowerPoint presentation that would serve as the educational component of their presentation. After incorporating edits from instructor feedback, the PowerPoint could be printed and adhered to a trifold poster to be used in their presentation. The final written assignment was an in depth description of the hands-on activity they planned to use in their presentation. The assignment also asked students to identify resources they would need to complete the activity and itemize team member responsibilities for each aspect of the project. The final assignment was to present at the community event. A second component of SL incorporated into A&P used the “product” model, where students produce a finished project for their supporting agencies (e.g., Marquette Service Learning Program, 2014). The Healthier Douglas County Coalition (HDCC) served as the academic partner for this project. The HDCC was formed in January of 2011. Its mission is to engage community members to live healthier lifestyles. The coalition provides support and connects and advocates for policy, systems, and environmental change to reduce and prevent obesity within Douglas County. The HDCC coordinating council is composed of six members who are responsible for visioning, strategizing, and continuing to move the goals of the coalition forward. There are 25 other active coalition members who play a role in achieving the HDCC’s goals. The HDCC has also have cultivated relationships and support from 150 key stakeholders (e.g., the mayor of Superior, the Douglas County administrator, Superior School District superintendent) throughout Douglas County. Still in its infancy, the coalition is currently collecting information on best practices and is seeking resources to best achieve its goals. SL has allowed A&P students to gather information that will help forward the mission of the HDCC. SL students identified cities and counties
around the nation and internationally that were both similar in population size, climate, and socioeconomic makeup to Superior/Douglas County and that were identified as “fit” or “healthy” communities by HDCC members. Students then collected general population and socioeconomic information on their chosen community using city and county webpages. Students used these webpages as resources to identify leaders in the community related to community health. Students contacted these individuals to ask further questions and collect more specific and quantitative data related to health practices and availability of resources. Students wrote up and presented their findings to the coordinators of the HDCC. This project enabled HDCC members to utilize the legwork of A&P students to identify and gather needed information. A&P students were able to see how the communities we live in affect the health and functioning of the anatomy and physiology they learn about in class every day. As the HDCC grows and expands its goals and objectives, it is thought that SL activities will grow and diversify as well. Assessment of these SL activities includes a UWS Center for Academic Service Learning end of the semester survey as well as a written reflective essay on the exercise. Students commented on what they learned or got out of the assignment, things that worked well for them, and things that didn’t work as well as they had planned. Students also assessed the contribution of each team member, which was considered in the final grade of each student. Overall students reported a positive experience with the projects, indicating that they enjoyed being able to pick a class topic to study in depth. Another common comment was how this assignment reinforced their learning of the course material. Students reported enjoying interacting with the community and had fun engaging the children and parents. The sections of the student reflection on what worked or didn’t work allowed the instructor to refine the assignments and the project as a whole.
Conclusion The UWS Department of Natural Sciences has successfully employed a variety of SL projects into a wide range of online and on campus introductory science courses. Projects addressed community needs involving invasive species, obesity, and low K–12 educational achievement as well as needs specific to the communities of national and international distance learning students. Both students and community partners anecdotally reported positive experiences with students emphasizing how this experience reinforced material learned in class. Implementation within courses further reinforces the connection UWS has with the broader community. Whereas these experiences have been deemed successes by the faculty involved and positive feedback has
36. Cultivating the Sciences With Service-Learning at a Regional University –•–269
been collected, assessment and refinement of projects must be an ongoing exercise. Some lessons learned and challenges faced when implementing SL into our science courses include developing a project that is appropriate to the nature and content of the course, sacrificing content for the project, determining the appropriate level of engagement of the students, grading the project, and assessing the success of the project. These challenges are
not unique to science courses (e.g., Gabrys-Alexson & Stewart, 2012).
References and Further Readings
learning in science education. American Secondary Education, 38(3), 40–61. MacDonald, J., & Dominquez, L. (2005). Moving from content knowledge to engagement. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(3), 18–22. Mangan, K. (2010). “Service learning” becomes the new standard at Tulane U. Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(24), A14–A16. Marquette Service Learning Program. (2014). Service learning models. Retrieved from http://www.marquette.edu/ servicelearning/models.shtml Mogk, D. W., & King, J. L. (1995). Service learning in geology classes. Journal of Geoscience Education, 43, 461–465. National Center for Science and Civic Engagement. (2014). Great Lakes Innovative Stewardship Through Education Network (GLISTEN). Retrieved from http://www.ncsce.net/ Initiatives/GLISTEN.cfm Northwest Regional Planning Commission. (2013). Wisconsin Point Area Management Plan. Superior, WI: Author. Pickering, J., Ague, J. J., Rath, K. A., Heiser, D. M., & Sirch, J. N. (2012). Museum-based teacher professional development: Peabody fellows in earth science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 60(4), 337–349. Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. A. (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Strom, S. (2009, December 29). Does service learning really help? New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes .com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03service-t.html?_r=0 Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains. (n.d.). About SALG. Retrieved from http://www.salgsite.org Weinberg, A. E., Basile, C. G., & Albright, L. (2011). The effect of an experiential learning program on middle school students’ motivation toward mathematics and science. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 35(3), 1–21.
Bixby, J. A., Carpenter, J. R., Jerman, P. L., & Coull, B. C. (2003). Ecology on campus: Service learning in introductory environmental courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(5), 327–331. Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. County Health Rankings & Roadmap. (2013). Douglas, WI. Retrieved from http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/ wisconsin/2014/rankings/douglas/county/outcomes/overall/ snapshot Danz, N. P. (2013). Syllabus for BIOL 111: Plants and people. Retrieved from http://www.uwsuper.edu/acaddept/ naturalsciences/index.cfm Douglas County Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Community health improvement plan: 2010 update. Superior, WI: Author. Fraser, D., Belde, G., & Danz, N. P. (2012). Baseline survey of invasive plants on Wisconsin Point. Proceedings of the St. Louis River Estuary 2012 Science Summit. Superior, WI: Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve. Retrieved from http://lsnerr.uwex.edu/Docs/ 2012ScienceSummit.pdf Gabrys-Alexson, R., & Stewart, R. D. (2012). Team teaching urban planning and transportation systems: Project-based pedagogy. Spaces & Flows: An International Journal of Urban & Extra Urban Studies, 2(1), 27–38. Kesten, A. (2012). The evaluation of community servicelearning course in terms of prospective teachers’ and instructors’ opinions. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(3): 2139–2148. Lemus, J. D., Bishop, K., & Walters, H. (2010). Quikscience: Effective linkage of competitive, cooperative, and service
Authors’ Note: The Great Lakes Innovative Stewardship Through Education Network (GLISTEN) from the National Center for Science and Civic Engagement provided financial and curricular support for the Wisconsin Point invasive plant project. (NCSCE; www.ncsce.net/Initiatives/ GLISTEN.cfm).
37 PEDAGOGICAL TECHNIQUES IN THE HEALTH SCIENCES ELIAS MPOFU
REINIE CORDIER
University of Sydney
James Cook University
MARTIN MACKEY
MICHAEL MILLINGTON
University of Sydney
University of Sydney
SYEDA ZAKIA HOSSAIN
SARAH WILKES-GILLAN
University of Sydney
University of Sydney
H
ealth sciences education prepares professionals to provide services to recover, restore, and maintain functioning for people with chronic illness and disability. Professionals in the health sciences are skilled in various disciplines (e.g., behavior and community health, disability studies, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, rehabilitation and health psychology, counseling, speech pathology) and in their service provision work collaboratively with physicians and community partners who may be organizations of or for people with chronic illness or disability (PCID). In the preparation of health science professionals, service-learning helps their understanding of the influences of health care context on the ways in which clients engage in health services. Service-learning is a way by which preservice health sciences professionals learn from and with their communities about best practices in providing community-oriented health care. Servicelearning is evidence informed experiential approach to enrich the student learning experience by bridging the concepts learned in the classroom setting to community settings in which these may apply. This chapter highlights a health college’s approach to infusing service-learning into the health sciences.
Goals and Processes of Service-Learning in the Health Sciences In the context of health sciences education, servicelearning is an approach for students to learn from and with people living with chronic illness or disability (PCID) about their rehabilitation and health needs in nonclinical or typical life situations. Learning outcomes for students may include (a) a deeper and personal understanding of chronic illness and disability from privileged participation in the lives of PCID, as a supportive partner rather than a professional–expert; (b) acquisition of knowledge and access to health resources in the community; and (c) supporting PCID in attaining their right to health and well-being (Gitlow & Flecky, 2005; Heiselt, 2011; Hoppes, Bender, & DeGrace, 2005; Mpofu, 2004). Students in their service-learning opportunities participate in the lived health experiences of PCID in typical community settings. From this participation, students develop evidence informed abilities to support PCID in their health-related quality-of-life choices more than they would with classroom learning alone (Atler & Gavin, 2010). Through active participation in community 271
272–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
settings with PCID partners, students learn from a variety of types of evidence on how best to facilitate community participation or inclusion for PCID. From their service-learning experiences, health sciences students gain knowledge of interdisciplinary collaboration important to supporting people with chronic illness or disability to access services for which they are eligible. Health sciences students with service-learning experiences seek to develop or acquire some or all the following preservice professional outcomes (Mpofu, 2006): • Ability to select and engage in real-world learning experiences that support and extend classroom-based learning about health-related quality of life • Acquisition of skills in self-directed, reflective learning from personal, situated, or community experiences with PCID • Acquisition and enhancement of interdisciplinary health education from learning about lived health with chronic illness or disability in the complexity of community settings • Development and acquisition of advocacy support skills for the enfranchisement of PCID in their civic and disability rights • Ability to apply participant action research skills to addressing the health and well-being needs of PCID in the community
Service-learning in the health sciences contributes toward developing competent professionals who are sensitive toward the lived health experiences of PCID based on students’ engagement in the community. Students’ engagement with health sciences opportunities in the community contributes toward developing professionals who, are in their practice, mindful of the lived health experiences and community resources that promote health and well-being (Hamel, 2001; Martin, Pilo-Kacir, & Wheeler, 2006). Culturally competent care is increasingly a prerequisite for health service providers in decreasing health-care disparities by ethnicity and other sociodemographics in today’s multicultural societies (Hayward & Charrette, 2012). Service-learning is a pedagogy for enhancing the cultural sensitivity of health-care providers in the context of communities with cultural pluralism (Lattanzi & Pechak, 2012).
The Role of Service-Learning in the Health Sciences Health sciences education with service-learning emphasizes student learning (rather than teaching), interdisciplinary work, and being allies of PCID in students’ community participation. In the process of engaging in service-learning, health sciences students acquire skills in intentional reflective learning (i.e., reflective writing and group discussions), and experience the importance of “mutuality” or partnership in learning about community-oriented health services for the health and well-being of PCID (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Hoppes et al., 2005; Mpofu, 2004).
Elias Mpofu (2004) distinguishes between learning processes and outcomes that characterize community engaged rehabilitation services education as compared to clinical experience (see Figure 37.1). Practicum or clinical internship experiences are primarily concerned with professional skills development within the purview of formal agency goals and needs. Most volunteer experiences are not tied to curriculum objectives and do not involve any coursework credit or instructor oversight. In teaching the health sciences with service-learning, classroom experiences are complemented with experiential-reflective learning in community settings. Content and procedures for servicelearning are negotiated with the community agency, taking into consideration its desires, the needs of the people living with chronic illnesses, and the availability of students.
Current Issues and Controversies The evidence for service-learning as a pedagogy usable with the health sciences continues to accrue. However, some service-learning efficacy studies in health sciences have tended to use rather homogenous samples of participant students, with small sample sizes or lower course enrollments which would constrain the generalizability of findings (e.g., Atler & Gavin, 2010; Gitlow & Flecky, 2005; Lohman & Aitken, 2002). While acknowledging the potential limitation, other studies (as previously reviewed) have supported the efficacy of service-learning with interdisciplinary classes and with large enrollments. However, there is a growing evidence base for service-learning in supporting health sciences pedagogy. For instance, Mpofu (2006, 2007), using a control group design, reports superior applied-learning gains for students taking an interdisciplinary senior-level rehabilitation services course on medical aspects of disabilities compared to peers with textbook learning only. Physical therapy students and community partners in service-learning overwhelmingly indicated positive attitudinal-learning postplacement in that they valued the community partnerships (Brosky, Deprey, Hopp, & Maher, 2006). Similarly, physical therapy students who participated in service-learning reported enhanced knowledge and positive attitudes toward older adults in residential-care settings (Beling, 2004; Greene, 1998) and increased selfawareness and capacity for empathy when working with a community living geriatric population (Greene, 1998). Physical therapy students with service-learning also significantly improved in their awareness of the physical therapy core value of cultural competence postplacement (Hayward & Charrette, 2012). Students taking a communication sciences and disorders course with service-learning reported being very satisfied with their academic experience and enhanced critical-thinking skills (Peters, 2011). The research evidence suggests service-learning is a useful pedagogy across all health science disciplines (Bridges, Abel, Carlson, & Tomkowiak, 2010; Mpofu, 2004, 2006).
37. Pedagogical Techniques in the Health Sciences–•–273
Educational Setting
Primary Foci
Internship Practicum
ServiceLearning
Volunteer Work
Professional development
Classroom learning enhancement
Self-exploration
Health discipline skills enhancement
Career exploration
Development of work habits
Socially responsive learning
Community citizenship
Health provider protocols and goals
Enfranchisement
Attainment
Diversity education
Multidisciplinary learning
Community needs
Service center needs Significant learning
Multidisciplinary learning
Oversight: Internal External
Relationship
Process
Faculty
Faculty/service center
Service center
Credentialing/ regulatory agency
Program advisory committee
Agency regulatory authority
Supervision/mentor
Mentor/partner
Partner/helper
Structured
Semistructured
Unstructured
Figure 37.1 Service-Learning in Context SOURCE: Adapted from “Teaching With Service Learning: Strategies and Opportunities for Rehabilitation Counselor Educators,” by E. Mpofu, 2004. Rehabilitation Education, 18(2), 121–132.
Practices and Methods Requisite health sciences service-learning course development activities include (a) recruiting and conferencing community partners for the service-learning; (b) developing prototype curriculum activities for students at each partnering agency to preset minimum experience expectations for quality control; and (c) developing procedures for student agency induction, orientation, mentor assignment, experiential activity negotiation and assignment, monitoring, and evaluation. This chapter briefly outlines some methods for infusing service-learning with health sciences in the context of interdisciplinary courses, and also describes disciplinary courses at the University of Sydney, Australia.
Illustrative Interdisciplinary ServiceLearning in the Health Sciences Service-learning is integrated into the Fundamentals of Rehabilitation course at the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) of the University of Sydney, Australia. The FHS has a student enrollment in excess of 5,000 in any one year and is the largest health sciences college in Australia. It comprises 10 health sciences disciplines, including behavioral and community health, exercise, and sports science, medical imaging and radiology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, rehabilitation counseling, and speech pathology. The Fundamentals of Rehabilitation course for which service-learning is implemented draws students from a variety of health sciences disciplines, including behavioral
274–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS Recruitment Students to enroll via online student enrollment services (6-8 weeks) Community Partner Recruitment & Workshop (2–3 weeks prior to semester begin date) Participant Randomization Students are randomly allocated into two groups
Group 1 Students to complete service-learning Weeks 2–7 – Reflective journals to be completed during this time
Group 2 Students to complete service-learning Weeks 8–12 – Reflective journals to be completed during this time
Weeks 2–6, Group 2 Weekly lectures, weekly tutorials
Week 7, First in-class case analysis exam with previewed video clip [Groups 1 & 2]. Submission of summary reflective journals with community partner feedback [Group 1]
Weeks 8–12 Group 2 Weekly lectures, weekly tutorials 24 hours service-learning 6 reflective journal entries Weeks 13–14 Second in-class case analysis exam with previewed video clip [Groups 1 & 2] Submission of summary reflective journals with community partner feedback [Group 2] Weekly lecture (wk 13) Weekly tutorial (wk 13) Unit of Study Evaluation Form Community Partner Student Feedback Form Weeks 14–15 Group presentations on service-learning experiences with community partners
Figure 37.2 Flow Chart on Staggered Service-Learning Placement Approach SOURCE: Phase I of the full program © 2009: Used by permission.
and community health, physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy, rehabilitation counseling, and speech pathology. Students taking service-learning attend weekly twohour classes and tutorials housed with the discipline of rehabilitation counseling. These tutorials focus on specific themes on disability and disadvantage and responsive community-oriented health services. Service-learning goals for the course include (a) collaborating with community health agencies to learn about rehabilitation and health needs that influence living with a chronic illness or disability; (b) helping the community partner agency with the coordination of activity and community participation of PCID based on their needs profile; (c) enhancing the community-resource awareness of people with disabilities,
including in leisure activities and community living. The students are assigned to community-partner agencies that provide direct experiences with people with disabilities in their community leisure or home living activities. Students complete a minimum of 34 hours of servicelearning with community agency partners within the 16 weeks of the semester. The course instructors use a staggered service-learning placement model (see Figure 37.2) with half of the students engaging in service-learning the first half of the semester, and the remaining students doing it the last half of the semester (Mpofu et al., 2014). Using a staggered placement approach with community partners has several advantages. First, it allows for use of fewer high value community partners or those strongly invested to support the service-learning experience of the
37. Pedagogical Techniques in the Health Sciences–•–275
Behavioral and Community Health Service-learning is applied to behavioral and health sciences education to orient preprofessional health sciences students with community social service so students learn about care provision from the perspective of the community members with disadvantage or vulnerability to poor health care (Hogan & Bailey, 2010; Roofe, 2001). For example, in a behavioral and community health course at the University of Sydney, students were partnered with community agencies serving people with homelessness to address their lived health needs. Students engaged in
Occupational therapy (OT) theory is recognition of the interactional nature between the person, the environment, and the occupation. Embedding service-learning in the OT curricula provides students (person) with increased rich, varied, and supported opportunities across different physical and social contexts (environment), which would better enable them to develop the skills needed to effectively perform their role as future occupational therapists (occupation). Service-learning principles provide additional learning opportunities for occupational therapy students to meet the minimum standards for entry-level occupational therapy competencies as proposed by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT) in 2008. The WFOT minimum occupational therapy standards are grouped into five competency areas: (1) the person-occupation-environment relationship to health, (2) therapeutic and professional relationships, (3) an occupational therapy process (4) professional reasoning and behavior, and (5) the context of professional behavior. Acquisition of these competencies by students should be in the context of local health needs and services (WFOT, 2008). Service-learning avails preservice OT students to apply an integrated learning framework, combining classroom learning and community experience (see Figure 37.3), and to acquire person,
Service-Learning WFOT
n rso Pe
Envi ron m t en
The following sections discuss service-learning applications within a selection of health science disciplines: behavioral and community health, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation counseling. In each case, we highlight the discipline specific service-learning goals and also describe by way of example the teaching of a discipline course with service-learning. We consider these discipline-specific applications to also support interprofessional learning among the students from their communityengagement experiences.
Occupational Therapy
Self-Awareness
OT
rity Integ
om m itm en t
Examples of Health Sciences Discipline Service-Learning
service to understand the impact on health and well-being of social dislocation. They also acquired a personal understanding of the processes of public and alternative housing access with social disadvantage.
C
students, and facilitates establishment of sustainable community partnerships over the long term. Second, with staggered placement of students, the community partners can carry at any one time the number of students they can comfortably support given their resources, which enhances the quality of placement experiences for both the students and community partners. Third, the community partners are better able to reliably replicate the service-learning activities with a succession cohort of students who are broadly similar in their learning needs to the completing cohort, thus equalizing the service-learning experience between cohorts. Issues of quality control are an important but often overlooked aspect with service-learning (Zlotkowski, 1998). Fourth, a staggered placement approach allows for research on the scholarship of servicelearning using a quasiexperimental design to study service-learning effects on students and prospectively community partners with a delayed placement experience (i.e., Figure 37.2 Group 2), as compared to students with an earlier placement experience (i.e., Figure 37.2 Group 1). This study design enables the instructors to capture any growth in applied learning with early servicelearning placement experience (Group 1) as compared to delayed placement (Group 2), and particularly for learning with evidence to show overtime. Preliminary evidence suggests high levels of student and community-partner satisfaction with the service-learning experience as well as superior applied-learning outcomes postplacement.
Oc
c u p a ti o n
Civil Discourse Re Soc sp on ial Co sib lla ility bo ra tio n
Inclusiveness
Figure 37.3 Integrated Framework for Occupational Therapy Service-Learning
276–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
-
BODY SYSTEMS
a
LIFE STAGE Child Adolescent Adult Older person
t
n d a
na
ly
a u
al
of finding sis s
g n
a
in
io n
DIVERSITY Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Cultural and language diversity Rural and remoteness Mental health Disability
-
pl
a
n
Figure 37.4 Service-Learning Pedagogy Context in the Physical Therapy Discipline SOURCE: Australian Physiotherapy Standards: Safe and Effective Physiotherapy, by Australian Physiotherapy Council. (2006), Diagram 1, p. 9.
only injury-risk appreciation as a participant industry partner or on the same terms with any community resource person. While engaged with injury risk management with a community industry partner, the students have the opportunity to embed classroom knowledge and skills in workplace injury risk management. Rehabilitation Counseling Infusing service-learning with rehabilitation counseling serves to promote in students heightened awareness of
Opportunities Generated Through Service-Learning
Service-Learning Principles
WFOT Entry-Level Competencies
• Self-awareness
• Occupational therapy process • Professional reasoning and behavior
• Intentional learning and reflection
• • • •
• Therapeutic and professional relationship
• Mutuality
• PEO health relationship • Context of professional behavior
• Experience sociocultural diversity
Collaboration Inclusiveness Integrity Commitment
• Civic discourse • Social responsibility Table 37.1
interpre ta t -
CLIENT Individual Carers, family and other support groups Communities Workplaces
en
SETTINGS
Community Hospital Private/public practice Tele-practice Education Recreation Workplace/industry Domiciliary
s
m
ervention int ev
-
Musculoskeletal Neurological Cardiorespiratory Other impacting on movement e.g., vascular
t
n
ss
Professional physical therapy education, like occupational therapy, is predicated on ensuring students develop the necessary skills, knowledge, and attributes to meet the required professional standards for practice. For example, the Australian Physiotherapy Council’s Standards (2006) promulgated by The Physiotherapy Board of Australia (see Figure 37.4), specify in part that physiotherapists must “demonstrate professional behaviour appropriate to physiotherapy” (Standard 1), “communicate effectively” (Standard 2), and “operate effectively across a range of settings” (Standard 9). Central to the acquisition of these professional competencies is the concept of client-centered care, which is aligned with the objective of service-learning to appreciate the lived context for health service provision. For instance, physical therapy students more readily acquire the core competency of “being able to operate effectively across a range of settings” from their community engagement experiences with PCID under different service delivery models, or adapting to changing situations including varying resource levels. Physical therapy students also take short service-learning placements (of several days per semester) to experience and contribute to the process of work injury risk management in real-world settings. This experience is different from the practicum or internship experience in that no clinical goals are intended for attainment by the student,
io
YSIOTHERA PY
e
Physical Therapy
PH
s
environment and occupation skills needed for a wellrounded health professional. The framework illustrates how service-learning experiences support the learning of context sensitive skills and competencies needed for occupational therapists. Table 37.1 is an elaboration on service-learning principles as they are translated in the context of occupational therapy discipline learning.
Service Principles to Support the Acquisition of OT Discipline Specific Competencies
37. Pedagogical Techniques in the Health Sciences–•–277
person-environment influences on community living experiences of PCID including their work participation. As an example, in teaching a graduate-level course on employment and job development for people with disabilities, the lead author had students engage local business partners to hire persons with a disability to value-add productivity and also to the diversify to the workforce by being disability inclusive. Activities included co-developing business proposals with persons with disability and prospective employers to create, develop, and maintain partnerships for employment and promote the growth of the business community; initiating the processes to yield job placements; support exploration of job options with community partners with disability; and achieving placement for persons with a disability by the end of the semester. As part of the service-learning experience, students used reflective journals to self-study as job developers. They also provided a written critique of a classmate’s completed job development for employment activities with a partner with a disability. The partners with disability and employer provided feedback on what worked for them from the service-learning engagement, helping to reinforce and mature effective practices by the student partner and also the business partner and partner with disability.
Health Technology Applications Learning With Service-Learning Assistive technology (AT) is any device, system, or design used by PCID to perform functions for activities and participation, with the benefits of maintaining, restoring, or augmenting their health and well-being. Within a servicelearning context, AT is often key to (a) enabling transport and community access to the environment within which the learner and the person with a disability meets and interacts, (b) enabling interaction between the learner and the person with a disability, and (c) enabling co-engagement in activities between the learner and the person with a disability. As such, curricula that incorporate a service-learning component necessarily provide opportunities for students to learn about AT use by PCID in real-world settings. Thus, students with service-learning acquire interprofessional skills regarding the types of assistive technologies used by PCID and their eligibility for, access to, and use of AT in community settings.
Policy Implications and Future Directions in Health Sciences Education Health sciences educators have built components of service-learning into their curricula over the two past decades. The trend is likely to continue to strengthen with people with chronic illness and disabilities increasingly being assertive regarding their rights to participate equitably in their communities. However, as reported earlier, other studies have supported the efficacy of service-learning
with interdisciplinary classes and with large enrollments. Education institutions with a coordination office for service-learning or community engagement are more successful with service-learning than those without the support. They likely will create structures for mentor support to faculty with service-learning interests and to develop a minor in civic and community engagement with elective courses spread across curriculum areas. Furthermore, health sciences schools with a community engagement mission or strategic goal would likely support use of service-learning and be more successful with that pedagogy. This is more probable in schools with learning and teaching strategic objectives to (1) encourage experimentation in teaching and learning with the intention of improving student satisfaction of teaching and learning, (2) develop alternative ways of increasing interprofessional learning experiences across the health sciences curriculum, and (3) increase commitment to the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Conclusion Participating in service-learning allows health science students to acquire community engagement skills to support the health and well-being of people with chronic illness or disability. In the process of service-learning, students acquire interprofessional professional competencies. They also develop the personal resources of self-awareness, empathy, integrity, commitment, collaboration, civil discourse, inclusiveness, and civic or social responsibility as health professionals. Service-learning is possible with interdisciplinary course offerings or electives as well as with discipline core course offerings. While the learning outcomes achieved with service-learning in teaching an interdisciplinary course overlap to an extent with those for a discipline specific course, interprofessional learning outcomes are likely to result with an interdisciplinary course subject. Health sciences education with servicelearning has the added benefit to students of learning about disability assistive technologies in the context of their reallife use by community members living with disability. Service-learning increasingly will be used to teach a greater number of health sciences courses because of its unique advantage to support interprofessional learning in the context of community.
Resources Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), https://ccph.memberclicks.net This organization promotes health equity and social justice. On the website, CCPH members have developed and collated a number of tools and resources to assist with service-learning implementation.
278–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
References and Further Readings Atler, K., & Gavin, W. (2010). Service-learning-based instruction enhances students’ perceptions of their abilities to engage in evidence-based practice. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 24(1), 23–39. Australian Physiotherapy Council. (2006). Australian physiotherapy standards: Safe and effective physiotherapy. Retrieved from http://www.physiocouncil.com.au/files/theaustralian-standards-for-physiotherapy Beling, J. (2004). Impact of service learning on physical therapist students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward older adults and on their critical thinking ability. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 18(1), 13–21. Bridges, D. R, Abel, M. S., Carlson, J., & Tomkowiak, J. (2010). Service learning in interprofessional education: A case study. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 24(1), 44–49. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 221–239. Brosky, J. A., Deprey, S. M., Hopp, J. F., & Maher, E. J. (2006). Physical therapist student and community partner perspectives and attitudes regarding service-learning experiences. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 20(3), 41–48. Gitlow, L., & Flecky, K. (2005). Integrating disability studies concepts into occupational therapy education using service learning. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59(5), 546–553. Greene, D. (1998). Student perceptions of aging and disability as influenced by service learning. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 15(3), 39–55. Hamel, P. C. (2001). Interdisciplinary perspectives, service learning, and advocacy: A nontraditional approach to geriatric rehabilitation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 17(1), 53–70. Hayward, L. M., & Charrette, A. L. (2012). Integrating cultural competence and core values: An international servicelearning model. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 26(1), 78–89. Heiselt, A. K. (2011). Rehabilitation counseling and servicelearning: Exploring new partnerships. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 42(3), 26–31. Hogan, S. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2010). Service learning as a mechanism for change in attitudes and perceptions of human services students toward substance-dependent mothers. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(4), 420–434.
Hoppes, S., Bender, D., & DeGrace, B. W. (2005). A service learning is a perfect fit for occupational and physical therapy education. Journal of Allied Health, 34(1), 47–50. Lohman, H., & Aitken, M. J. (2002). Occupational therapy students’ attitudes toward service learning. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 20(3/4), 155–164. Lattanzi, J. B., & Pechak, C. M. (2012). Educating globally minded physical therapist students: Curriculum strategies to equip the next generation. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 26(1), 55–60. Martin, P. M., Pilo-Kacir, C., & Wheeler, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary service learning and substance abuse screening in free clinic settings. Substance Abuse, 26(3/4), 49–52. Mpofu, E. (2004). Teaching with service learning: Strategies and opportunities for rehabilitation counselor educators. Rehabilitation Education, 18(2), 121–132. Mpofu, E. (2006). Service learning: Impact on the achievement of pre-service human service students. Rehabilitation Education, 19(4), 249–258. Mpofu, E. (2007). Service-learning effects on the academic learning of rehabilitation services students. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(1), 46–52. Mpofu, E. (Ed.). (2014). Community oriented health services: Practices across disciplines. New York, NY: Springer. Mpofu, E., Millington, M., Mackey, M, Cordier, R., Hossain, S. Z., & Wilkes-Gillian, S. (2014). Inter-professional learning outcomes with a staggered service learning placement. Presented at the National Conference of Rehabilitation Education Spring Conference, Los Angeles, California, March 13, 2014. Peters, K. A. (2011). Including service learning in the undergraduate communication sciences and disorders curriculum: Benefits, challenges, and strategies for success. American Journal of Audiology, 20(2), S181– S196. Roofe, N. L. (2011). Improving families’ nutrition knowledge through service learning. Journal of Allied Health, 40(4), 194–198. World Federation of Occupational Therapists. (2008). World Federation of Occupational Therapists: Entry level competencies for occupational therapists. Retrieved from http://www.wfot.org Zlotkowski, E. (1998). Successful service-learning programs: New models of excellence in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
38 IMPLEMENTING SERVICE-LEARNING IN DOCTOR OF AUDIOLOGY CURRICULUM CAROL G. COKELY, LINDA M. THIBODEAU, AND JACKIE L. CLARK University of Texas at Dallas
A
udiology is the health care profession that specializes in identifying, diagnosing, treating, and managing auditory and balance disorders across the life span. Audiologists are licensed practitioners who fit, verify, and monitor amplification; evaluate, program, and monitor cochlear implants; evaluate and treat tinnitus; design and implement newborn-hearing screening and hearing conservation programs; and perform surgical monitoring. Audiologists also may conduct research. Currently, a doctorate is the entry-level degree for audiologists, and most earn the doctor of audiology (AuD). The typical four-year degree consists of didactic and laboratory course work in addition to a minimum of 2,000 hours of clinic rotations in community clinics, hospitals, medical and audiology practices, and industry. Effective assessment and intervention for individuals with hearing loss often requires access to community resources and teamwork with nonaudiologist service providers; therefore, audiology education is well-suited to a service-learning curriculum that incorporates collaborative and problem-based learning. The inclusion of a service-learning approach for students results in a greater degree of analysis, evaluation, synthesis, and application of concepts as compared to traditional lecture or discussion models (Theall, 1999). Service-learning provides experiential education as a result of community-based engagement, and objectives include (1) activities that meet targeted learning outcomes; (2) collaboration with a community-based entity; (3) reciprocity of benefit among the university program, students, and community partner; and (4) structured reflection and analysis (Boyer, 1997).
Audiology provides many opportunities to address realworld problems that nurture civic responsibility and foster recognition that solutions for complex issues require multiple perspectives (Liu, 2005). Although the clinical component to education is considered experiential learning, students work with individual patients and families to develop competencies within the scope of audiology practice. While essential, clinic rotations provide limited or inconsistent opportunities for students to gain self-efficacy regarding interprofessional liaisons, organization, and community structures. Servicelearning takes place in the community where students work alongside mentors to address a diversity of quality of life issues on a larger scale than seen in a patient-practitioner dyad. A 2011 supplement of The American Journal of Audiology, Using Service Learning to Enhance Undergraduate and Graduate Education in Audiology and Aural Rehabilitation (Pratt, 2011) is devoted to servicelearning approaches for undergraduate and graduate courses in audiology and speech-language pathology. Studentlearning outcomes across studies included improved understanding issues of target populations, real-world problem solving, interprofessional communication, and overall enhanced preparation for professional practice. Benefit to the community was consistently documented as well. The remainder of this chapter describes the implementation of service-learning principles in the AuD curriculum at the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) within the required didactic courses Audiologic Rehabilitation for Adults (AUD 6316) and Aural Habilitation for Children 279
280–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
with Hearing Impairment (AUD 7326), and within the experiential-elective courses Intensive Auditory Rehabilitation for Adult Hearing Loss (AUD 7325) and Experiential Service-Learning Through Humanitarian Programs (COMD 7v98). Course syllabi may be found at coursebook.utdallas.edu/. The courses described in this chapter are specific to knowledge and skills for assessment and management of individuals with hearing loss; however, the problem-solving approach, course structures, and implementation may be applied to other clinical disciplines.
Audiologic Rehabilitation for Adults (AUD 6316) Audiologic rehabilitation encompasses the identification and assessment of hearing loss, its impact on communication and quality of life, technologic and nontechnologic intervention options, and posttreatment management. A service-learning approach was adopted in 2008 for the three-credit required AUD course. The structure and requirements for this course are closely aligned with service-learning philosophy and components: Students partner with the community to explore a problem, create and implement a project or product that addresses the issue, obtain feedback from stakeholders, analyze outcomes, and engage in reflective writing activities. The process is guided by a community mentor and the course instructor. See Carol Cokely and Linda Thibodeau (2011) for a comparison between content and student outcomes for preservice-learning and service-learning course adoption.
Service Learning Timeline AUD 6316 is an eight-week summer course, which meets twice per week for three hours each class. During the first week of class, students learn about the structure of the course, the potential advantages, limitations and obligations of service-learning and civic engagement, and mentor and facility options. Students form groups of three or four based upon their preference. In week two, mentors visit the class and introduce students to the mission and services of their facilities, explaining how they perceive hearing loss poses problems for individuals whom they serve. An exploration worksheet guides the group to identify at least three problems related to hearing loss from the perspective of the community mentor. Naming specific issues, rather than broad-based problems is essential: Residents with memory decline have trouble communicating with family members over the telephone rather than Residents have trouble communicating with family members. For each problem identified, several potential projects or products are elected. Working together, the mentors and students select the specific issue and the target
product or project. Once an issue surfaces that incites the greatest interest for the mentor and students, they discern which potential solution(s) are sustainable and on a scale commensurate with student-learning objectives, time and available resources, and facility goals. The timeline for implementing the service-learning project is as follows: Precourse: Instructor establishes community mentors and broad issue. Week 1: Students learn about SL and other course requirements. Students select mentor group. Week 2: Mentors meet class. Group uses exploration worksheet to define issue, potential product/solutions, and primary sources. Issue and product/project selected. Week 3: Service-learning agreement completed: Groups visit mentor facility, project plan refined, tasks assigned, timeline finalized. Week 4–6: Create project and outcome measures. Meet with mentors, end users of product, course instructor. Week 6–7: Products in use. End users and mentors provide feedback. Week 8: Class presentations: Summarize process, product, outcomes, reflections. A service-learning agreement is completed by all parties (see Appendix A). Part I of the agreement incorporates information obtained from the service-learning worksheet. The project is initiated and refined over the next several weeks. Incorporating primary sources is integral to the process; that is, students must recognize the stakeholders who not only contribute unique information but also are directly impacted by the project. Consistently, groups have altered project components based on novel perspectives gleaned from primary sources. Following focus groups with older adults, one group that aimed to provide resources for older adults with hearing loss shifted its focus from financial support to counseling and social and emotional support services. Final projects are targeted for implementation between the sixth and seventh week of the semester. Following application of the project or product, students have approximately two weeks to employ outcome measures and analyze feedback about the quality, usefulness, and long-term plans for the project. Throughout, the course instructor monitors correspondence and the quality of the product and facilitates a productive group process. Note that the term product is often used to signal that the outcome of the process is something useable. Incorporating service-learning activities into a didactic course requires substantial effort for the course instructor,
38. Implementing Service-Learning in Doctor of Audiology Curriculum–•–281
not only in securing the community mentors and monitoring all group activities and outcomes, but in adapting the course so that important content and learning objectives are not sacrificed for the time-intensive service-learning experience. In traditional courses, the amount of time spent on group projects, as well as the cohesiveness among group members, varies greatly among students. For AUD 6316, approximately 20%, or nine hours, of course time is allotted for students to work together, visit with mentors, mentor-facilities, and other primary sources. A “team” attitude is facilitated, and the importance of the service-learning project for student-learning outcomes is reinforced. The development of supplemental course material is instrumental in accommodating the time demands for students. Concise PowerPoint or handouts are provided ahead of time for ease of access to information. Students are given class time to independently review material or
glean key points from original articles. Reading time is accompanied by guided questions to allow the class to focus on discussion, analysis, and synthesis of opposing positions or perspectives rather than the introduction of facts and concepts. Traditional class lectures are not eliminated but dramatically reduced. Over the past six years, seven facilities provided mentors, and over 20 projects have been implemented. A sample of community mentors and service-learning projects are provided in Table 38.1. Each year, the projects address a particular area of concern regarding adults with hearing impairment. To date, topics include transitional services to higher education and the workforce, implementation of the American with Disabilities Act and access to appropriate hearing assistive technology, and issues specific to older adults or those with, or at high risk for, concomitant cognitive impairments. Thus, within a given year, overlapping
Mentor Facility
Service-Learning Product
Center for Brain Health
Promotional bookmarks for Healthy Hearing screening of adults with and without risk for cognitive decline Self-paced training for researchers: impact of hearing loss for adults with cognitive impairment
Division of Assistive Rehabilitative Services (DARS)
Focus group on employer education: access and compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Retirement Community
Facility-sustainable staff training programs: • hearing aid care and maintenance • understanding hearing loss and implementing appropriate strategies
Guide for vocational counselors: audiology services, hearing aids, and assistive technology
Staff assisted Skype program to connect memory-impaired to family Deaf Action Center Hard of Hearing Services
Guide for audiologists and physicians for services in metroplex Patient tools: awareness of impact of hearing loss on hospital care Resource packet: emotional consequences of hearing loss
Adult Day Care Services
Training and brochure: enhancing communication at center and home via strategies and technology
University Student Accessibility Services
Employee online training: • ADA compliance & access PowerPoint • hearing loss and use of FM systems video and PowerPoint
Assistive Devices Center
Brochure and website information: home safety for older adults with hearing loss
Table 38.1
Summary of Community Mentors and Service Learning Projects in AUD 6316
SOURCE: Adapted and reprinted with permission from Table 2: Summary of SL experiences in AUD 6316 in “Service Learning in Auditory Rehabilitation Courses: University of Texas at Dallas” by C.G. Cokely & L. M. Thibodeau, American Journal of Audiology, 20, S233–S240. © 2011 American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association. All rights reserved.
282–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
concerns mean that each mentor provides information pertinent to all groups, and course content adjustments equitably impacts all students. A selection of servicelearning projects may be viewed at www.utdallas .edu/~cokely.
Fostering Reflective Skills Students must complete reflective journals to chronicle the service-learning experience, explore feelings and actions, and foster analytic thinking and personal insight. Journals highlight students’ frustrations and accomplishments. If students commit to the process, journals indicate students’ movement from uncertainty to clarity, confidence, and self-efficacy. Most students initially are not proficient at reflective journaling. A simple template is introduced to aid in the reflective process: What, So What, and What Next? The first component, What?, requires students to identify events, feelings, or circumstances that yield strong emotions or uncertainty. For So What?, students explore personal, interpersonal, and situational triggers regarding the issues or uncertainty. Balanced reflections address both the positive and negative aspects of the process. In What Next?, introspection is required to identify behaviors that are on target or plans for new or changed behaviors that will optimize desired outcomes. Common themes in entries include confidence in ability to achieve a worthy project, issues with group cohesion or perspective, and ability and frustration in self-directing the process. Student journals are shared only with the course instructor, who provides feedback regarding the reflective nature of the entries and offers suggestions to limit the chronicling of events in favor of improved self-analysis.
Aural Habilitation for Children With Hearing Impairments (AUD 7326) The UTD curriculum includes a course focused on the habilitative needs of children with hearing loss. The threecredit course takes place during the spring semester, but the course’s unusual structure allows for immersion in realworld setting and independent work toward project development and implementation. During the first week of the semester, the class is held from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the administration building for a public school program for the deaf, where teachers, administrators, and parents participate in the class. Students also meet as a class several times throughout the remainder of the semester but have time in their schedule to complete projects and meet with the course instructor. The immersion in the real-world setting and access to parents, teachers, and mainstream classrooms inspire the design and implementation of projects and tutorials. Students have prepared auditory training materials and tutorials that address a variety of issues related to hearing aids, cochlear implants, wireless FM/digital systems (systems whereby a teacher uses a lapel or boom microphone
to transmit his or her voice directly to a child’s hearing aid or cochlear implant), and various communication issues. One project, the development of verification procedures for personal FM systems, was included in professional guidelines by the American Academy of Audiology. Students present tutorials to parents and teachers from local school districts during an evening workshop. Following revision of their presentations based on the feedback, the presentations are shared through the Internet (www.utd.edu/~thib). A second experiential course requirement is a weekend camp for teens and their families known as Camp CHAT (Communication via Habilitation and Audition for Teens). Students develop auditory training activities, technology experiences, and esteem-building activities that involve group interaction in a fun, social environment. Students are paired with a family for the weekend and learn about challenges and successes as teens experience middle and high school and prepare for secondary education. The communication and esteem-building activities created for Camp CHAT were made available to other professionals in a CD format. See Thibodeau and Jennifer Alford (2010) for more detailed descriptions of Camp CHAT.
Intensive Auditory Rehabilitation for Adult Hearing Loss (AUD 7325) An elective course, AUD 7325, is offered as a week-long conference for adults with hearing loss and their communication partners called Summer Intensive Auditory Rehabilitation Conference (SIARC). The course is offered between semesters when students do not have other course or clinic requirements. During SIARC, students learn about the numerous challenges and personal consequences of hearing loss as they are paired with a couple to provide individualized needs assessment, access to technology, and practice with coping and communicative strategies. The conference format includes daily classes, group discussions, and activities within the community. Cultural and social activities provide opportunities for the students and couples to implement and practice solutions as well as try new technology. Students must interact with management and employees of various entertainment, tour, theater, and restaurant venues as they help their couples apply what they have learned, use assistive technology, and become more assertive. Generally, facilities are aware of the need for assistive devices for persons with hearing loss but use them so infrequently that they are unsure about the function or necessary routine maintenance. As a result of SIARC, participating hotels have purchased assistive devices so they can meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, tour guides have become more aware of the benefits of using “clear speech” along with technology, and one entertainment venue upgraded its infrared headsets. See Thibodeau and Alford (2010) and Thibodeau and Cokely (2003) for more detailed descriptions of SIARC.
38. Implementing Service-Learning in Doctor of Audiology Curriculum–•–283
Experiential Service-Learning Through Humanitarian Programs (COMD 7v98) The UTD humanitarian audiology program began informally in 1998 in Mozambique with a two-week trip abroad for participating audiology students, and it was 10 years before a formal, three-credit didactic course with associated experiential learning was created. Coursework and field experience aim to meet the primary tenet of humanitarian service: promote sustainable programming while also ensuring ethical and best practices. Humanitarian efforts have been implemented in Mozambique, South Africa, and Zambia, and goals include wide-scale hearing assessment and screening, hearing aid
services, hearing-health awareness, and the implementation of sustainable programs in the community. The benefits to students are numerous: They learn to identify priorities as they deliver much needed hearing health care in underserved and underresourced developing countries, participate in educating local personnel to carry on clinical services after the team leaves, and evaluate how cultural norms impact presence and utilization of services. The communities benefit not only by receiving services and the foundations of a sustainable program, but teams provide the Ministry of Health offices with demographic information regarding the status of hearing health and outcomes following audiologic care. Table 38.2 provides several student learning objectives, activities implemented both
Goal
Activities
Resources
Recognize cultural bias and display cultural competence
Prior to trip • Investigate unique features and colloquialisms for United States and host community. • Complete American Cultural Awareness Quiz.
Langdon, H. (2008). (Chapters 1 & 4) U.S. Peace Corps. (2006).
Upon arrival • Arrange local tour to learn history and observe local customs. Identify relationship among poverty, education, and health factors
Prior to trip • Define Poverty Cycle; identify why families may be unable to break the cycle and how the cycle may be broken. • Investigate small grants microloan opportunities within host community; analyze which are most appropriate. • Discuss the effect of educating girls for strategic planning to increase community well-being.
Trickle-Up Program (www.tricleup.org) Heifer Project International (www.heifer.org) U.S. Peace Corps. (2003). U.S. Peace Corps. (2001).
Upon arrival • Visit a local school; define demographics, such as gender equivalence, age range, and ethnic make-up. Identify reliable resources for programming
Table 38.2
• Identify incidence/prevalence of diseases in host country; required immunizations; guidelines and training sources for providing hearing healthcare services. • Analyze World Health Organization’s definition of hearing loss. • Identify minimum requirements for providing hearing aids in under resourced communities. • Define the concept, Millennium Development Goals.
Moyo (2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov) United Nations (www.un.org/en) World Health Organization (www.who.intltopics/deafness/en)
Student Learning Goals, Activities, and Resources for Humanitarian Audiology
284–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
during the didactic portion of the class prior to departure and upon arrival in the host community, and resources pertinent to humanitarian work in general and specifically to audiology.
Measuring Student Learning Outcomes Students participate in humanitarian trips that focus on myriad health, social, and economic issues. Despite the divergent purposes among planned humanitarian efforts, it is possible to measure experiential learning outcomes across experiences. Following the trip, students are asked to evaluate the humanitarian efforts as well as changes to their cultural awareness and sensitivity. They compare outcomes (e.g., prevalence/referral/treatment data) to the target goals of the community and contrast a post-experience American cultural awareness quiz to their preexperience scores. Students also evaluate materials created to aid in the sustenance of targeted hearing-health care goals such as picture-instruction cards for hearing aid care or draining-ear care.
References and Further Readings Boyer, E. (1997). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service of Higher Education, 1(1), 11–20. Clark, J. L., & Saunders, J. E. (2012). The coalition for global hearing health uses technology to lend a hand. The Hearing Journal. Retrieved from http:journals.lww.com/thehearing journal/Fulltext/2012/05001/The_Coalition_for_Global_ Hearing_Health_Uses.1.aspx Cokely, C. G., & Thibodeau, L. M. (2011). Service learning in auditory rehabilitation courses: The University of Texas at Dallas. American Journal of Audiology, 20(2), S233–S240. Langdon, H. (2008). Assessment and intervention for communication disorders in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Liu, C. (2005). Enriching software engineering courses with service-learning projects and the open-source approach. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 613–614). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:1062455 .1062566 Moyo, D. (2009). Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Pratt, S. R. (Ed.). (2011). Using service learning to enhance undergraduate and graduate education in audiology and aural rehabilitation. American Journal of Audiology, 20 S, Washington, DC: American Speech Language and Hearing Association.
Conclusion The AuD program at UTD utilizes service-learning approaches in both didactic courses and experiential electives. A basic principle of service-learning is that benefits are realized by the student, the university, and the community. The service-learning partners are primary stakeholders in the process, and projects have resulted in positive and sustainable outcomes. Furthermore, student servicelearning projects have resulted in numerous publications and presentations at state, national, and international forums. Often, ties between the community entities and the AuD program have been strengthened, partnership on additional projects has been undertaken, and sharing expertise is commonplace. Implementing service-learning courses requires intensive efforts and collaboration within the university program; however, students are provided with unique experiences that not only contribute to courselearning outcomes but also enhance efficacy in civic engagement and real-world problem solving in a manner not typically available in standard didactic coursework.
Theall, M. (1999). New directions for theory and research on teaching: A review of the past twenty years. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 29–52. Thibodeau, L. M., & Alford, J. (2010, October). Benefits of intensive auditory rehabilitation training. Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation, 17, 4–18. Retrieved from http://div7perspectives.asha.org/content/ 17/1/4.abstract Thibodeau, L. M., & Cokely, C. G. (2003). Maximizing auditory rehabilitation for clients, students, and faculty through an intensive training program. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 36, 67–79. Retrieved from http://www.audrehab.org/jara/2003/Thibodeau%20 Cokely,%20%20JARA,%20%202003.pdf U.S. Peace Corps. (1999). Understanding culture. In Culture Matters: The Peace Corps Cross-Cultural Workbook. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Peace Corps. (2001). Programming and training booklet 1: The basics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470772.pdf U.S. Peace Corps. (2003). A microenterprise training guide for Peace Corps volunteers (Information Collection and Exchange Publication No. M0068). Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Peace Corps. (2006). A life inspired: Tales of Peace Corps service. Washington, DC: Author. World Health Organization. (2012). Community-based rehabilitation: Promoting ear and hearing care through CBR. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/ news/CBREarHearingCare.pdf
38. Implementing Service-Learning in Doctor of Audiology Curriculum–•–285
Appendix A AUD 6316 Service-Learning Agreement This agreement confirms that the student, mentor, and course instructor agree to the process and expectations outlined below:
I. Information from Worksheet Student-Learning Goals re: Course Content Service/Community Goals Professional Goals + Establish liaisons within community; enhance effective written and oral professional communication Anticipated Primary Sources Briefly Describe Project Outcome Measurements Task Assignments Timeline Problem identified: _________ Product completed: _________ Product implemented: _________ Review outcomes: _________ Presentation: _________
II. Expectations Each student will 1. Accomplish agreed assignments that meet the needs of the agency and its clients. 2. Follow all policies of the site, including health and safety precautions, and confidentiality. 3. Not work in a room alone with a child or other client or transport a child or other client, unless specifically screened and cleared to do so by the agency. 4. Notify the supervisor and/or instructor of any problems, concerns, or changes. 5. Complete weekly entries in reflective journal and maintain log of hours. 6. Maintain weekly contact with mentor and course instructor. The community mentor will 1. Involve the student in assignments that support the learning goals, insofar as possible. 2. Provide orientation to facility and access to target population and other pertinent personnel as is possible. 3. Have clear risk-management and personnel policies and procedures in place and include these in student training as needed. 4. Guide and evaluate student work. 5. Clarify procedures for the student to report problems, to get assistance, and to make suggestions. 6. Complete evaluation form. 7. Notify the student and/or the course instructor of any problems, concerns, or changes. 8. Maintain weekly contact with student(s) and course instructor. 9. Other ________________
286–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
The university mentor will 1. Meet with students and the community mentor throughout semester to monitor and facilitate progress toward learning and service goals. 2. Provide resources as needed. 3. Maintain weekly contact with students and mentors. SOURCE: Adapted and reprinted with permission from “Service Learning in Auditory Rehabilitation Courses: The University of Texas at Dallas” by C. G. Cokely & L. M. Thibodeau, American Journal of Audiology, 20, S233–S240. © 2011 American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association. All rights reserved.
39 SERVICE-LEARNING AND DEAF STUDIES IN THE COMMUNITY SHERYL B. COOPER AND JODY H. CRIPPS Towson University
D
eaf studies is typically defined as the study of Deaf people, signed language, cultural behaviors, and idiosyncrasies of the Deaf population through sociological, anthropological, and ethnographic perspectives. Through the development of civic sensitivity, participation in building a civil society leading to global citizenship and interdependence, the technique of servicelearning can enhance a Deaf studies program. Servicelearning empowers students as agents of positive social change. Service-learning in Deaf studies provides the opportunity to build strong reciprocal relationships with a variety of community partners and provide benefits to many constituencies. In a field where the connection between the classroom experience and cultural, experiential, and linguistic immersion into the Deaf community is critical, service-learning provides the missing link. While application of service-learning in the field of Deaf studies is still in its infancy, those who have used this pedagogy have found it to be an effective way to achieve many goals, including a multicultural education. This chapter will address the rationale, benefits, pedagogical issues, and research progress related to the application of servicelearning to the field of Deaf studies.
Service-Learning in Deaf Studies Multicultural Service-Learning Marilynne Boyle-Baise (2002) emphasizes the value of a multicultural perspective in service-learning, and Deaf studies provides an excellent opportunity for this. As part of the global diverse society, the Deaf community has a
distinct culture with its signed language, and unique behaviors, idiosyncrasies, and benefits to offer to the community-at-large. Boyle-Baise identified four fundamental concepts regarding the multicultural aspects of service-learning, which this chapter will apply to servicelearning in Deaf studies. Boyle-Baise’s first concept suggests that multicultural education should include a touchstone with disenfranchised communities that are authentic, provocative, and deeply felt. Through service-learning in Deaf studies, students interact with members of a community often perceived as disenfranchised, but which offers rich opportunities for linguistic and cultural learning opportunities. This perception of disenfranchisement can be alleviated following the implementation of experiences that break the cycle of traditional thinking. The goal of servicelearning in the field of Deaf studies—changing the mindset of students at an early point in their careers—can lead to new perspectives on social justice (Cooper, Cripps, & Reisman, 2013). The second concept proposed by Boyle-Baise states that community-based learning should afford opportunities to make personal connections with people from groups other than one’s own. Service-learning in the Deaf community allows students to have consistent and personal exposure to people like and unlike themselves, and to develop understanding and sensitivity based on meaningful relationships. In these experiences, students have the opportunity to see the language and culture of the Deaf community come to life. Boyle-Baise’s third concept suggests that servicelearning should offer a structure for community-based learning, collaborative in intent, responsive to local needs, 287
288–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
reflective upon experiences, and integrated into course content. Providing experiences that focus on reciprocity among the Deaf community, the educational institution, and community partners, Deaf studies students can successfully engage in activities that allow them to learn, work with agencies in the community, and provide muchneeded service in the community (Cripps & Cooper, 2012). Using the model, students have opportunities for applying classroom material and skills through a series of guided reflection experiences. Finally, Boyle-Baise suggests that community-based learning should balance school-based preservice practicums with culturally diverse and low-income populations. Boyle-Baise suggests that service-learning, unlike practica or internships, presents real, responsive reasons for students to be in the community, utilizing engagement in needed and worthwhile tasks to serve communities. Deaf people who use American Sign Language (ASL) represent a community rich in language and culture (Padden, 1980; Rutherford, 1988) which is often overlooked. While not all Deaf people fit into the “low income populations,” there are Deaf people who do as a result of problems with literacy, discrimination, underemployment, and unemployment (Siegel, 2000). Service-learning provides students with valuable exposure to both learn from and provide services to these individuals. Boyle-Baise promotes bringing multicultural education, community-based learning, and service-learning together in a dynamic of shared control where faculty members and community partners share equal status and empower each other. This can be applied to Deaf studies with a goal of enhancing students’ awareness of social justice and its impact on Deaf people, signed language, and society.
Service-Learning in Deaf-Related Fields Deaf studies students will ultimately pursue careers in disciplines such as teaching, counseling, social work, rehabilitation, and research, requiring knowledge of signed language and deaf-related topics (Cooper, Emanuel, & Cripps, 2012). Careers in any of these fields require the ability to integrate knowledge of the experiences of Deaf people with the ability to explain this to those unfamiliar with the cultural aspects of the Deaf community. Professionals and future professionals in any discipline working with the Deaf community not only provide services to the consumers they serve, but also educate their family, friends, employers, and colleagues about the unique needs of the Deaf community. The notion of service-learning applied to the interdisciplinary field of Deaf studies has been discussed (Cripps & Cooper, 2012). Service-learning with Deaf people has been implemented in several academic disciplines within and parallel to Deaf studies. Disciplines within the scope of Deaf studies, such as rehabilitation services for Deaf people, have identified value in using service-learning (e.g., Hansmann, Saladin, & Quintero, 2011). Suzanne Reading
and Robert Padgett (2011) discuss service-learning as an opportunity for working professionals to learn ASL from deaf signers. The field of sign language interpreting has also used service-learning in curricula to enhance preparation for interpreters working with deaf and deafblind people (Shaw & Jolley, 2007; Shaw & Roberson, 2009).
Why Service-Learning in Deaf Studies? Service-learning in Deaf studies provides unique benefits to students. One is the enhancement of signed language skills through personal interactions with Deaf people, achieved by exposing students to Deaf people in the community (attending socials at the Deaf church), allowing them to develop relationships that facilitate meaningful conversations assisting deaf individuals in reading documents written in “legalese,” and encouraging improvement in signed-language skills (ongoing feedback from the community members). Service-learning also develops students’ intercultural sensitivity and competence. This allows students to develop an interactive and trusting relationship with individual members of the community and dispel myths, negative perceptions, and inaccurate stereotypes (Dunlop & Webster, 2009) about signed languages and Deaf people while enabling them to enhance their communication skills. The ideology that society perceives that spoken language is superior or has power is manifest in the concept of “audism” (Cripps & Supalla, 2012), the notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears (Bauman, 2004, p. 242). In short, service-learning has the opportunity to combat audism by “[denaturalizing] ideologies that have become naturalized” (Fairclough, 1995, as cited in Pennycook, 2001, p. 81). Another benefit for students is that students apply cultural concepts learned in the classroom to their on-site experiences and subsequently engage in personal and in-depth reflections about Deaf people. Additionally, service-learning incorporates signed language and deaf-related educational objectives with meaningful service to the community, including a dual focus on academic learning and authentic volunteer projects (Kraft, 1996). These projects, based on academic learning from the classroom, strengthen students’ thinking skills in developing empathy, personal ethics, and the habit of advocating for and within the community. Finally, service-learning can assist students in transitioning to the roles of service-provider and advocate through handson experience (Cooper et al., 2013). These student-oriented benefits, as well as benefits to employers and the Deaf community, can be provided through the delivery of a comprehensive and well-executed service-learning course.
Social Services in the Deaf Community A service-learning approach to teaching about social services in the Deaf community was implemented in the undergraduate Deaf studies Program at Towson University
39. Service-Learning and Deaf Studies in the Community–•–289
in Maryland. The course Social Services in the Deaf Community utilizes a pedagogical classroom setting with 20 to 45 students, varying by semester. The academic component of this course includes lectures and activities introducing a variety of social welfare issues, followed by the opportunity to apply these concepts off-campus at a variety of nonprofit and government agencies. For six years, students have been placed in these agencies and experience working directly with Deaf people. This course is regularly revised to improve its quality. Areas such as placements and sites are reviewed every semester for effectiveness and efficiency. Placement models using one 15-hour experience and two 10-hour placements have been tried. In the single placement model, students were placed in social service, government, and nonprofit agencies to provide or establish services to benefit Deaf people. In the two-placement model, students provided volunteer social welfare-type services to Deaf people in the community during the first half of the semester. Placements were determined in partnership with agency needs. During the second half of the semester, students were assigned to agencies where they were required to assess the level of “signed language/deaf-friendliness” of one agency, provide training to staff in these areas, and assess the training’s effectiveness. This two-placement model allowed students to learn about (1) various needs within the Deaf community, (2) service-delivery systems for provision of services to Deaf people, and (3) the awareness education needed by agencies serving Deaf people. No textbooks could be found that integrated information regarding provision of social services to the Deaf community. A variety of techniques were tried, beginning with the use of a general textbook on social welfare issues (Zastrow, 2008) supplemented with instructor lectures on the impact of these issues on the Deaf community. Another approach was using a teacher-made packet of articles laying the foundations for each social welfare issue and providing readings showing the impact on the Deaf community. Finally, a more “green” approach was taken by posting links to required readings on an electronic bulletin board.
3. Increased logistical complexity of incorporating partners into the teaching process, 4. Anxiety associated with less control over curriculum, and 5. Student anxiety.
Obtaining Institutional Support The faculty member teaching this class participated in a year-long faculty development program, which assisted faculty with incorporating service-learning into courses. This program provided resources for faculty new to service-learning. These supports allowed for maintaining a high level of faculty motivation to ensure the success of service-learning experiences. Grant money was available from the university to support service-learning. The faculty member wrote a grant to pay for bus transportation for class visits to a variety of social service agencies, to develop an awareness of what services were available and what services were missing for Deaf people in the community. The faculty support program also provided a standardized instrument to measure change in attitudes based on service-learning experiences and assistance with data entry and analysis. All of these resources supported the university’s emphasis on civic engagement as part of its larger mission.
Learning a New Pedagogy Revising a course from didactic teaching to servicelearning requires an investment of faculty time for planning and logistics. Through all stages of the conceptualization and implementation, the faculty member must balance the learning and service objectives, integrating the goal of developing students’ critical thinking skills into the curriculum (Morton, 1996). The initial development of materials required a significant investment of time, but tasks were made easier by adapting templates and borrowing thought questions for student journals from existing materials on service-learning. As mentioned previously, the faculty member created a set of readings, which included relevant and seminal articles as required student readings.
Meeting the Challenges of Service-Learning Increased Logistical Complexity Issues specific to service-learning in the field of Deaf studies became apparent with the evolution of this course (Cripps & Cooper, 2012). The authors address four challenges as outlined by Keith Morton (1996), suggest a fifth one, and further provide recommendations to address these challenges associated with service-learning pedagogy. They are 1. Increased need for institutional support, 2. Significant time required to learn new pedagogy,
During the first semester of service-learning, significant time was spent on creating and matching students with many placements around the region. In subsequent semesters, the faculty member worked with one agency to identify individuals and families with social service needs. Using one agency to match students with local Deaf consumers significantly reduced the amount of time needed to arrange the logistical complexity of this course and decreased demands from many community partners needing guidance.
290–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Anxiety Associated With Less Faculty Control Over Curriculum Curricular challenges included creating a rubric for reflective journals focusing on growth and reflection and predicting and attempting to allay student concerns about a new format of pedagogy. Because much of the actual learning in service-learning takes place outside of the classroom, faculty members often feel a loss of control of student learning. Rubrics were developed to provide guidance for students and to measure student progress. When students were placed with many different organizations, the faculty member could not check up on each site regularly. The revised course design utilizing one coordinating organization eased administrative needs and reduced faculty stress. A sense of trust was accomplished through regular meetings, emails, and phone calls. With the freedom for students to falsify paperwork by fabricating journal entries or adjusting time sheets, the faculty member must carefully review paperwork for peculiarities indicative of falsification, stay in regular contact with the community partners, and take punitive measures if needed.
Student Anxiety Although not discussed by Morton, the authors identified another challenge to be met, that of student anxieties. Students entering this course in its first semester were unprepared for the need to schedule time and transportation for off-campus responsibilities, and there was no student pipeline of information to prepare students psychologically. To alleviate this, the faculty member provided the following: 1. Provision of descriptions of the off-campus requirements in the syllabus and course catalog; 2. Student-to-student meetings (group and individual) to describe the service-learning experience in the semester prior to the course; 3. Presentation to the class early in the semester regarding the format of service-learning; 4. Posting of assignments, rubrics, and sample journals on the course’s website; and 5. Meetings with students to provide emotional support for their anxieties about working in the Deaf community.
Over the years, the student pipeline of information has prepared the students for what to expect. While not totally eliminating anxiety and challenges, the mechanisms just discussed have greatly reduced both faculty and student anxiety.
Reciprocity in Service-Learning Jody Cripps and Sheryl Cooper (2012) described how service-learning partnership involves several individuals
and organizations working together toward common goals. University representatives (including faculty, administration, and students), rehabilitation agencies, and members of the Deaf community must all be committed to the success of the program and be willing to work together. The faculty member begins by contacting community partners to identify appropriate placements while students provide input to the faculty member regarding their time and geographical preferences. After the placements are made, the faculty member meets with the students in class weekly to check on progress and to discuss reflections. The faculty member coordinates all paperwork. The faculty member contacts the community partner regularly to keep abreast of any issues regarding any aspect of the experience. Community partners work closely with the faculty member to design experiences that will be beneficial to the agency, the consumers, and the students. Partners identify consumer needs, communicate these needs to the students, provide guidance and supervision to the students, and report back to the faculty member regarding progress and any concerns that might arise. Additionally, community partners check in regularly with the consumers to ensure that the service-learning experiences are going well for them. Deaf consumers receive explanations from the community partner about the service-learning project and then receive services from the students. In most situations, as relationships develop, the consumers begin to provide informal feedback to the students on their signed language communication skills and cultural appropriateness. Finally, the students play a central role in this reciprocal learning process. They are learners and teachers, interacting with all constituencies. Students learn and receive guidance from faculty members and community partners, simultaneously giving to the Deaf community and receiving back from them. This student-centered model provides benefits for all involved.
Research on Service-Learning in Deaf Studies A study was conducted to ascertain the impact of servicelearning on the development of altruism among college Deaf studies students (Cooper et al., 2013). Altruism has been defined as helping with a self-based locus of normative motivation (Schwartz & Howard, 1982), motivated by internal personal norms and generated by one’s own internal values, rather than helping, which is motivated by external social norms. Joseph Kahne and Joel Westheimer (1999) identified two categories of altruism, charity and change, which represent very different perspectives. Charity emphasizes character-building and a kind of compensatory justice where those who have help those who do not have. However, altruism can also aim for social change
39. Service-Learning and Deaf Studies in the Community–•–291
and development of civic responsibility, emphasizing the mutual responsibility and interdependence of rights and responsibilities, focusing on enlightened self-interest, connecting students to the community in a way that creates a shared sense of purpose in working toward social justice (Marullo & Edwards, 2000). The methodology for this study was a survey questionnaire administered to a group of Deaf studies students before and after their service-learning experiences. The goal was to determine if there were changes in the students’ attitudes toward service-learning as a result of the actual experience. Significant change was noted in students’ responses to 20 of the 46 statements. The responses were categorized according to eight stages identified by Ann Harris Shiarella, Anne McCarthy, and Mary Tucker (2000) that outline the development of altruism. Findings indicated that overall, the servicelearning experience had significant impact on the attitudes of the students in both charitable and social justice areas (Cooper et al., 2013). Through this process, students showed an increased sensitivity to social welfare issues and the need to respond to them. Students acknowledged that they have the ability to make the world a better place and that their actions can make a difference in the world and in the lives of others. While the study by Sheryl Cooper, Jody Cripps, and Joel Reisman (2013) provides an optimistic picture of the benefits of service-learning within deaf-related disciplines, more resources are needed. A textbook addressing the social welfare needs of the Deaf community is desperately needed. Additional research would support the preliminary claims of the effectiveness of service-learning in the Deaf community. Studies similar to that by Cooper et al. need to be done (1) utilizing populations on other campuses; (2) using a longitudinal approach; (3) using other validated instruments; (4) examining different aspects of benefits of service-learning for students, including the impact of the experience on student attitudes toward community service and experiential learning; (5) investigating the impact of service-learning on all of the constituencies involved; (6) investigating the impact of service-learning on consumer attitudes toward receiving services; and (7) investigating community agencies’ attitudes toward receiving training on signed language and Deaf awareness. Additionally, Cripps and Cooper (2012) identified the need for further investigation involving reciprocity with the community-at-large as part of civic engagement.
Conclusion Overall, service-learning appears to be a good fit with the field of Deaf studies based on the curricula and research implemented thus far. Service-learning in Deaf studies allows the university to partner with community
agencies as part of a civic engagement model that benefits students and the Deaf community. Service-learning can engage students in the community in several beneficial ways. Students have the opportunity to build relationships and become aware of community resources, bolstering their skills and confidence. This nontraditional approach to learning is a reality-based pedagogy, including engaging in meaningful community work and field visits, and providing a change from typical classroom settings. It can poignantly help students apply their knowledge in the areas of signed language and Deaf studies. Incorporating relationships with off-campus organizations provides both the immediate benefits of the service-learning experience, as well as future networking opportunities for graduates. Service-learning can differentiate future job-seekers from others in terms of their preservice experiences. It appears that service-learning is a promising tool for sharing Deaf- and signed-language-awareness between the university and the Deaf community. Some suggestions for addressing the challenges of this pedagogy and course implementation in Deaf studies have been proposed. As implemented, this model has deepened relationships with community partners and given students meaningful and multicultural opportunities. Incorporation of the suggestions provided in this chapter regarding service-learning in Deaf studies can provide the missing link between students’ classroom learning and true understanding of signed language used by Deaf people and diverse issues faced by Deaf people. The potential impact of this type of learning can be far-reaching. By including a curricular component where Deaf studies students provide training to the community-at-large, widespread awareness of and sensitivity to Deaf people who use signed language can be significantly increased. Preliminary lessons learned from service-learning in Deaf studies experiences provide the foundation for ongoing curricular revisions that can take the concept forward in new directions. Achievement of the mission of institutions of higher education and academia regarding civic engagement can occur through the reciprocity and experiences of service-learning. The involvement of dedicated partners in the community, proactive faculty members with institutional support, and motivated students can create mutually beneficial experiences. Academic programs in Deaf studies should consider maximizing community resources and offering their services to their local, national, and global community to improve the quality of life for Deaf people while attaining institutional goals of civic engagement.
Authors’ Note: The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of Dr. Diana Emanuel, Dr. Samuel Supalla, and Joel Reisman to earlier drafts of this paper.
292–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
References and Further Readings Bauman, H-D. L. (2004). Audism: Exploring the metaphysics of oppression. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(2), 239–246. Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service learning: Educating teachers in diverse communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cooper, S. B., Cripps, J. H., & Reisman, J. I. (2013). Servicelearning in Deaf studies: Impact on the development of altruistic behaviors and social justice concern. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(5), 413–427. Cooper S. B., Emanuel, D. C., & Cripps, J. H. (2012). Deaf studies alumni perceptions of the academic program and off-campus internship. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(4), 373–390. Cripps, J. H., & Cooper, S. B. (2012). Service-learning in Deaf studies: Integrating academia and the Deaf community. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 46(1), 354–368. Cripps, J. H., & Supalla, S. J. (2012). The power of spoken language in schools and deaf students who sign. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(16), 86–102. Dunlop, M. R., & Webster, N. (2009). Enhancing intercultural competence through civic engagement. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 140–153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK: Longman. Hansmann, S., Saladin, S., & Quintero, J. F. (2011). Development of social learning program for students in undergraduate deaf rehabilitation program. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 44(3), 106–115. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1999). In the service of what? The politics of service learning. In J. Claus & C. Ogden (Eds.), Service learning for youth empowerment and social change (pp. 25–42). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kraft, R. J. (1996). Service-learning: An introduction to its theory, practice, and effects. Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 131–159.
Marullo, S., & Edwards, B. (2000). From charity to justice: The potential of university-community collaboration for social change. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 895–912. Morton, K. (1996). Issues related to integrating Service-Learning into the curriculum. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-Learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 276–296). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Padden, C. A. (1980). The Deaf community and the culture of Deaf people. In C. Baker & R. Battison (Eds.), Sign language and the Deaf community (pp. 89–103). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reading, S., & Padgett, R. J. (2011). Communication connections: Service learning and American Sign Language. American Journal of Audiology, 20, S197–S202. Rutherford, S. (1988). The culture of American Deaf people. Sign Language Studies, 59, 129–147. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1982). Helping and cooperation: A self-based motivational model. In V. J. Derlaga & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 327–352). New York, NY: Academic Press. Shiarella, A. H., McCarthy, A. M., & Tucker, M. L. (2000). Development and construct validity of scores on the Community Service Attitudes Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 286–300. Shaw, S., & Jolley, C. S. (2007). Assessment of service-learning in the Deaf-blind community. Association of Experiential Education, 30(2), 134–152. Shaw, S., & Roberson, L. (2009). Service-learning: Recentering the Deaf community in interpreter education. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(3), 277–283. Siegel, L. (2000). The educational and communication needs of deaf and hard of hearing children: A statement of principle on fundamental educational change. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(2), 64–77. Zastrow, C. (2008). Introduction to social work and social welfare: Empowering people (10th ed.) Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Appendix A Abridged Syllabus for Social Service in the Deaf Community Social Services in the Deaf Community Catalog Description: Examines a variety of agencies and service delivery systems providing support to the Deaf community. Off-campus experiences required (service-learning, field trips).
Course Outcomes: The learning outcomes for this course are as follows: Upon completion of the course, the student will be able to 1. Discuss a variety of social welfare issues, utilize critical thinking skills to identify the impact of these issues on people who are Deaf and hard of hearing, and begin to suggest solutions;
39. Service-Learning and Deaf Studies in the Community–•–293
2. Describe a variety of government, private, and nonprofit organizations and agencies providing services to the Deaf community, identify which services are provided by which agencies, and be able to make appropriate referrals; 3. Describe the history of service provision to individuals who are Deaf and hard of hearing in the United States and in the state; 4. Understand the structure and procedures of various social services agencies; 5. Provide services that are helpful and meaningful to members of the Deaf community to which the student is assigned; 6. Provide Deaf Awareness training and support that is helpful to agencies in the community.
Course Bibliography Section 1: Social Welfare Harris, J., & Bamford, C. (2001). The uphill struggle: Services for deaf and hard of hearing people-issues of equality, participation and access. Disability & Society, 16(7), 969–979. Luey, H. S., Glass, L., & Elliott, H. (1995). Hard-of-hearing or deaf: Issues of ears, language, culture, and identity. Social Work, 40(2), 177–182.
Section 2: Social Work Roles Cooper, A., Rose, J., & Mason, O. (2004). Measuring the attitudes of human service professionals toward deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 148(5), 385–389.
Section 3: Poverty Anderson, G. (1989). Deafness and poverty in third world countries. America, 160(21), 531–534.
Section 4: Healthcare Andrade Pereira, P., & Fortes, P. (2010). Communication and information barriers to health assistance for Deaf patients. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(1), 31–37. Iezzon, L. I., O’Day, B. L., Killeen, M., & Harker, H. (2004). Communicating about health care: Observations from persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Annals of Internal Medicine, 140(5), 356–362. Margellos-Anast, H., Hedding, T., Perlman, T., Miller, L., Rodgers, R., Kivland, L., . . . & Whitman, S. (2005). Developing a standard comprehensive health survey for use with Deaf adults. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(4), 388–396.
Section 5: Family Moores, D., Jatho, J., & Dunn, C. (2001). Families with Deaf members: American Annals for the Deaf, 1996–2000. American Annals for the Deaf, 146(3), 245–250. Sebald, A. (2008). Child abuse and deafness: An overview. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(4), 376–383.
Section 6: Mental Health Issues Mathos, K. K., Kilbourne, A. M., Myers, R. R., & Post, E. P. (2009). Disparities in mental health services for persons who are deaf: Advancing research towards action. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 42(3), 152–166. Mejstad, L., Heiling, K., & Svedin, C. (2008/2009). Mental health and self-image among Deaf and hard of hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(5), 504–515. National Association of the Deaf Law and Advocacy Center. (n.d.). Legal rights of Deaf individuals to effective communication in a mental health setting. Retrieved from www.nad.org/mentalhealth Vernon, M., & Leigh, I. (2007). Mental health services for people who are Deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(4), 374–381.
Section 7: Drug and Alcohol Addiction Alvarez, J., Adebanjo, A. M., Davidson, M. K., Jason, L. A., & Davis, M. I. (2006). Oxford house: Deaf-affirmative support for substance abuse recovery. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(4), 418–422. Guthmann, D., & Blozis, S. (2001). Unique issues faced by Deaf individuals entering substance abuse treatment and following discharge. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(3), 294–304. Titus, J. C., & Guthmann, D. (2010). Addressing the black hole in substance abuse treatment for Deaf and hard of hearing individuals: Technology to the rescue. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 43(2), 92–100.
Section 8: Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Coll, K., Cutler, M., Thobro, P., Haas, R., & Powell, S. (2009). An exploratory study of psychological risk behaviors of adolescents who are deaf or hard of hearing: Comparisons and recommendations. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(1), 30–35. Miller, K., Vernon, M., & Capella, M. (2005). Violent offenders in a Deaf prison population. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(4), 419–425.
294–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Section 9: The Workplace National Association of the Deaf. (n.d.). Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from http://www.nad.org/print/issues.civil-rights/ ADA Rochester Institute of Technology-National Technical Institute for the Deaf. (n.d.). Integrating a Deaf employee in the workplace. Center on employment. Retrieved from http://www.ntid.rit.edu/nce/employers/working-with-deaf U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Disability discrimination. Retrieved from http://www1.eeoc.gov//laws/types/ disability.cfm?renderforprint=1
Section 10: Sexual Orientation Levy, N. (2002). Deafness, culture, and choice. The Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(5), 284–285. Zakarewsky, G. T. (1979). Patterns of support among gay lesbian Deaf persons. Sexuality and Disability, 2(3), 178–191.
Section 11: Racism Anderson, G. B., & Bowe, F. G. (1972). Racism within the Deaf community. American Annals of the Deaf, 117(6), 617–619. Anderson, G. B., & Miller, K. R. (2004/2005). Appreciating diversity through stories about the lives of Deaf people of color. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 375–383. Simms, L., Rusher, M., Andrews, J. F., & Coryell, J. (2008). Apartheid in Deaf education: Examining workforce diversity. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(4), 384–395.
Section 12: Aging Kehl, K., & Gartner, C. (2010). Can you hear me now? The experience of a Deaf family member surrounding the death of loved ones. Palliative Medicine, 24(1), 88–93. Tidball, K. (1990). Application of coping strategies developed by older Deaf adults to the aging process. American Annals of the Deaf, 135(1), 33–40.
Section 13: Literacy Nathan P., Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of Deaf studies, language, and education (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. SOURCE: Developed by Sheryl B. Cooper and reprinted with permission.
40 ENGINEERING HISTORY Service-Learning at a Non–Liberal Arts Institution MICHAEL H. CARRIERE Milwaukee School of Engineering
O
n an unseasonably warm spring 2013 day in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, I found myself ankle deep in soil, helping 12 first-year Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) University Scholars Program honors students build a series of raised garden beds that they had designed for a nonprofit partner, Career Youth Development (CYD). The beds were to make up a community garden that would be housed in CYD’s Victory Over Violence Park, a public space dedicated to the countless young people from this North Side neighborhood who had lost their lives to gun violence. And the reality of such violence was palpable as we finished up construction: Just five days before plants were installed in the garden beds, a gunman shot and killed 16-year-old Marvin Cottrell, Jr., a member of CYD who was described as an “important person” to the program by CYD executive director James Ferguson (Bayatpour, 2013). Cottrell was the type of young person that CYD has attempted to reach throughout its rich history. As deindustrialization sunk its teeth into much of Milwaukee throughout the late 20th century, young African American men like Cottrell came to face to face with an urban political economy marked by increasing violence and diminishing job opportunities. Since 1970, CYD has offered educational and vocational programming to provide young people avenues out of this troubled environment. In light of such a commitment to neighborhood youth, Ferguson saw the garden effort as another vehicle to potentially change the landscape—in this case literally—that had contributed to Cottrell’s death. “We’re planting new roots, turning new
ground,” noted Ferguson, “so we can stand against violence together” (Bayatpour, 2013). All of this was heady stuff for a group of engineering majors (electrical, mechanical, architectural, and biomolecular) who predominantly came to Milwaukee from rural and suburban Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois. But our class meetings, readings, and assignments had not only prepared them for the act of designing and constructing raised garden beds; they had also given them the context as to why such projects were valuable in this part of the city—and what historical issues they sought to address. My tenure at MSOE has convinced me that such engineering students are experiential learners and, as an historian, I have become convinced that service-learning projects—particularly those rooted in the emerging field of urban agriculture—have great potential in teaching these students the value of the liberal arts in general, and history more specifically. Service-learning experiences allow my students to become a part of, in the words of historian Laura F. Edwards (2011), “the conversation between the past and the present through which meaning is revealed” (p. 32). By allowing my students to become partners in this conversation, I am helping them become not only well-rounded human beings, but also better engineers. As the liberal arts struggle to find a place in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)-centric world of the early 21st century, such a conclusion may provide a means for disciplines like history to remain both relevant and well funded. It may also provide us a model for a truly integrative
295
296–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
approach to higher education, one well suited for the realities of the present moment.
Setting the Stage: The University Scholars Program Curriculum MSOE’s University Scholars Program is a one-year, intensive honors experience rooted in the liberal arts. First-year students from all disciplines come together in seminar-style class meetings throughout a three-quarter arc (fall, winter, and spring) to discuss materials related to the broad theme of The City. The fall quarter experience, Reading the City, uses Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man as a way to introduce these young students to the humanities. As New York emerges as a crucial protagonist in Ellison’s novel, my students come to see how the city itself can be construed as a “text,” one open to a myriad of readings. Throughout the fall quarter, we draw upon other works that assist my students in their attempts to begin to “read” the city. From the photography of Jacob Riis to the music of Motown, class materials are designed to give students a more sophisticated understanding of the concepts behind the humanities while allowing them to see how the city often becomes the setting for incisive explications of more universal human experiences. If the first quarter of the University Scholars Program experience gives students, through a heavy emphasis on reading, the intellectual framework to begin to engage with both the city and the humanities, the writing-intensive winter quarter, Writing the City, Righting the City, introduces these young learners to the realms of the social sciences, with an emphasis on history and public policy—and the relationship between the two. Our two anchor texts for the winter quarter are Patrick D. Jones’s The Selma of the North: Civil Rights Insurgency in Milwaukee and John M. McCarthy’s Making Milwaukee Mightier: Planning and the Politics of Growth, 1910– 1960, with supplementary materials drawing from a range of disciplines (including sociology, anthropology, and contemporary journalism). The state of U.S. cities has profound implications for such issues as citizenship, housing, health care, employment, and political representation and a thorough study of Milwaukee highlights how history informs the present conditions of the 21st-century city. Such a focus on public policy and its impact on the urban environment allows my students to see how cities are actually “lived” by those who call them home. After paying attention to representation of the city in the humanities and the ways in which public policy and history shape the urban landscape, the spring quarter, Seeing—and Speaking—the City, allows us to directly engage with the ways that the city’s built environment is actively constructed. During this quarter we study the architectural and planning aesthetics of the urban landscape, along with
the physical and temporal characteristics of the modern city. Here, the emphasis is less on reading and writing and more on experiential learning. We take a series of field trips to sites across Milwaukee, including Milwaukee City Hall, the abandoned Pabst Brewery compound, Sweet Water Organics (an indoor urban farm on the city’s South Side housed in a formerly vacant industrial building), and Grace Lutheran Church, home of one of the oldest congregations in the city. Such an approach gives my students the means to best understand how to “see” the city, but it also provides them with the vocabulary to “speak” the language of the urban built environment. Through such field trips we come to see that the city of the early 21st century is a space in flux. It is my hope that my students take from my classes the belief that they can play a part in collaborating with the community in redefining such spaces for the new millennium.
From Learning to Doing: Service-Learning and the University Scholars Program Importantly, the University Scholars Program offers ways for students to begin such a process. Our winter quarter curriculum, with its focus on the recent history of Milwaukee, deals directly with the often intersecting legacies of race and employment. Throughout much of the 20th century, Milwaukee was a manufacturing hub, as companies such as Allis-Chalmers, Schlitz Brewing, A. O. Smith, and American Motors put thousands of employees on the path to the middle class. This was particularly the case for Black Milwaukeeans who flocked to the city during the years following World War II. Industrial labor provided such migrants, who settled on the city’s North Side (often out of necessity; restrictive covenants and other mechanisms served to enforce residential segregation throughout the city), a host of well-paying jobs. By the 1980s, however, deindustrialization had brought about the loss of more than two out of every three factory jobs the city had in 1970. Capital flight led to White flight, which led to a diminishing tax base and whole neighborhoods devoid of amenities like banks, parks, and grocery stores (Schmid, 2004). My students, through a variety of course readings, assignments, and field trips, come to know this narrative of declension well, and, predictably, it is a story they find highly upsetting. What, they ask, can be done to address such histories of racism and disinvestment? It is here that service-learning becomes an integral part of the class. During the winter quarter we come to discuss, after covering the ways that public policy (or lack thereof) often created the landscapes of vacancy that mark 21st-century Milwaukee, potential strategies to deal with such abandoned spaces. Within the city, a variety of organizations, including Growing Power, Walnut Way Conservation Corp., Victory Garden Initiative, and the aforementioned
40. Engineering History–•–297
Sweet Water Organics have worked to transform a host of vacant lots and buildings into centers of urban agriculture. Under the leadership of MacArthur “genius” grant winner Will Allen, Growing Power has helped position Milwaukee at the forefront of this emerging movement. As an urban historian whose research focuses primarily on the legacies of deindustrialization in American cities, I am struck by how such efforts transform formerly underutilized sites into places of activity and production. In such spaces the narrative of deindustrialization is turned on its head, as things—fruits and vegetables—are once again made at these sites. At the same time, these strategies of adaptive reuse do not replicate the destructive policies of earlier urban renewal efforts; historic buildings are not falling victim to the wrecking ball. What we are seeing is a bottom-up approach to urban redevelopment, an approach that has the potential to address complex histories of race and class while transforming Milwaukee into a green-belt city. For my students, the emergence of urban agriculture provides an example of how to rethink contemporary Milwaukee. Other academics in cities across the country are reaching similar conclusions. In Philadelphia, for example, University of Pennsylvania faculty members Michael Nairn (urban studies/landscape architecture) and Domenic Vitiello (history) have teamed up on a number of research projects and courses revolving around urban agriculture. As they explained their work in a recent Harvard Design Magazine article (2009) Growing food connects people to their environment and to their neighbors, nurturing trust and relationships that tie together social, economic, and ecological systems. Many people garden as a deliberate strategy to feed people who lack regular access to fresh, nutritious food. Community gardens in Philadelphia concentrate overwhelmingly in low-wealth neighborhoods ravished by disinvestment, where people do their best in circumstances that most Americans would find intolerable. (p. 2)
As such a quote suggests, projects related to urban agriculture have the potential to speak to a variety of issues that my honors students wrestle with throughout the academic year. More importantly, it also provides an entry point for a variety of service-learning experiences. During the winter quarter, I also introduce my students to our community partners, or those who will be working with us on our service-learning projects for the rest of the academic year. Throughout the past three years, students have partnered with a local YMCA chapter on a community garden design and build, constructed a solar food dehydrator for the Victory Garden Initiative, and worked on improving aquaponic farming (the cultivation of plants and fish together in a constructed, recirculating ecosystem) with Sweet Water Organics. Such projects, in the words of fellow historian and service-learning advocate John Saltmarsh (2010), offer a form of “engaged pedagogy” that speaks to both the
worlds of the liberal arts and engineering. To Saltmarsh (2000), service-learning can give young people studying history “the ability to apply knowledge that leaves the world a better place than they found it. To do so they should be able to make connections—between different bodies of knowledge and experience, and between theory and practice.” More specifically, Saltmarsh concludes that “history as liberal education elevates skills of citizenship—critical thinking, public deliberation, collective action, and community building” (p. 45). Service-learning projects associated with urban agriculture thus afford my students the opportunity to make these critical connections between theory and practice, between what we discuss in the classroom (the reality of “food deserts” in the wake of capital flight) and what we do in the community (work toward ways of improving access to healthy food in the underserved neighborhoods of Milwaukee). At the same time, my students are practicing critical thinking (grasping and manipulating the technology behind aquaponic farming), public deliberation (meeting with their nonprofit partners on a regular basis), and community building (the completion of the project itself often brings various sections of the city together)—all skill sets commonly associated with the liberal arts. Importantly, I am allowing them to hone such skills by speaking to their strengths as engineering students. As an educator at an engineering school, I want to provide activities that will help my students become better engineers, and service-learning, by allowing them to actually design and build things, provides them with valuable real-world experience. My thoughts on this relationship between the engineering disciplines and service-learning have been shaped by the work of Edward J. Coyle, Leah H. Jamieson, and William C. Oakes (2005). These three engineering educators provide useful criteria for designing servicelearning experiences for engineering students. To them, such experiences must offer students “a compelling context for engineering design, a multidisciplinary team experience, sufficient time to learn and practice professional skills, personalized mentoring, and exciting technical challenges” if they are to allow them to improve professionally (p. 1). Based upon my assessment of course evaluations for the University Scholars Program classes offered over the past three years, I am convinced that I am offering my students such experiences.
Bringing It All Together: Urban Growing With Career Youth Development During the 2012–2013 winter quarter, a group of University Scholars Program students began a partnership with Career Youth Development (CYD). Initially, this project was conceived as a way to support the nonprofit in bringing gardening projects to Victory Over Violence Park. My students, in close consultation with CYD staff and other community members, designed a series of four
298–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
raised garden beds. Echoing themes discussed in our class meetings, the garden was meant to provide a nonviolent activity for neighborhood young people while producing a product—fresh food—on a parcel of underutilized land. The garden was also designed to provide a much-needed source of healthy food in this underserved neighborhood, a development that could speak to matters of public health in the nearby community. Yet my students, as they came to learn more about CYD and the neighborhood it called home, were not content to only work on the garden beds. In light of our class readings on the civil rights movement in Milwaukee during the 1960s, my students learned that Jeannetta Robinson, the founder of CYD, had marched with Martin Luther King Jr. and had participated in a series of protests throughout the decade, calling for the desegregation of Milwaukee public schools. In discussing such connections with CYD staff, my students also learned that at least one former member of the Milwaukee Commandos, the group of Black activists who worked with Milwaukee civil rights leader James Groppi during the 1960s, worked at the nonprofit. How, though, did such histories speak to the garden project? Also during the winter quarter of 2012–2013, I introduced my students to the work of Will Allen, the founder of the Growing Power farm who has emerged as the face of urban agriculture in Milwaukee. An African American man originally from the South, Allen has cast his efforts to bring farming to the city as a continuation of earlier strains of activism within the Black community. Access to healthy, affordable food is therefore a “civil right,” as Allen describes in his recent autobiography, The Good Food Revolution: Growing Healthy Food, People, and Communities (2012), one “every bit as important as access
to clean air, clean water, or the right to vote” (p. 7). I also show my students photographs of Growing Power’s main farm building, which is covered with murals featuring depictions of the Great Migration and slogans such as “We Shall Overcome” and “People Power.” With such readings and images in mind, my students sought to place the CYD garden into a broader, more inclusive understanding of civil rights history in Milwaukee. We collectively decided to partner with two local artists— Nicolas Lampert and Paul Kjelland—who pledged to produce two large murals for the garden site, one dealing explicitly with the history of the Milwaukee Commandos (Figure 40.1). My students not only worked with Lampert and Kjelland on the placement of these murals throughout the garden, they also helped develop signage for the park, addressing the ways that the garden project should be viewed as an extension of the civil rights history of city. A local K–12 private school, the Clara Mohammed School, is now developing a curriculum that will use the garden to teach both natural science and American history. It is my intention to have a future cohort of University Scholars Program students assist with this endeavor.
Building Reciprocity: The Benefits of Service-Learning for All Participants Comments offered by my students suggest that they too saw the benefit of such partnerships. One student, in reflecting on his experiences in his final class assessment paper, saw how the service-learning experience spoke to his training as an engineer. “As an AE [Architectural Engineering] major,” he wrote, “I was also able to relate a
Figure 40.1 Mural Created for Victory Over Violence Park by Artists Nicolas Lampert and Paul Kjelland
40. Engineering History–•–299
lot about the city to what I am studying professionally.” To this student, the garden project “provided a way to focus what we were discussing in class, a way for us to apply the topics we were learning about as we were learning them” (Student #1, 2013). Another student focused on the benefit of the project to the community-at-large. “Due to the low income of many residents in the area,” this student wrote, “the availability of healthy food is limited, and the garden can potentially improve the access to nutritious food” (Student #2, 2013). Finally, a third student was able to see how the project spoke to both his education as an engineer and to the needs of the neighborhood surrounding CYD. As he wrote The spirit of Victory Over Violence Park was evident during the construction of the raised bed gardens, when local Black residents were eager to help White students with the project. Everyone recognized that this community was worth investing in. The raised bed garden project provided obvious benefits for the community, such as healthy food and a constructive activity for local youth. The project tied in nicely with conversations we had in the classroom, and it allowed us to do something about the issues we studied.
Yet this student also noted that “the raised bed garden project posed several challenges.” For him, the design process proved difficult, as did working with other students as well as with a community partner. Completing the garden, in other words, was no easy task—and it wasn’t designed to be (Student #3, 2013).
A Developing Alliance: The Liberal Arts and the STEM Disciplines in the 21st Century In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama, noting that American colleges needed to turn out more graduates from the STEM disciplines to meet global challenges in these fields from countries like China and India, warned that we had reached “our generation’s Sputnik moment.” Two years later, Obama called for a “college scorecard” that would provide incentives for colleges and universities that teach the STEM disciplines, or those institutions that offer “the education and training that today’s jobs require.” In April 2103, the Obama Administration committed $3.1 billion to improve STEM education nationwide (Petty, 2013). This call for increased funding for the STEM disciplines has gone hand in hand with severe cuts to liberal arts departments at institutions of higher learning across the country. If nothing else, this chapter suggests that such discussions don’t have to proceed from the point of either/ or: A reciprocal relationship between the two can be achieved. More importantly, as Columbia University historian Alan Brinkley (2009) reminds us, the liberal arts can help guide us through moments of intense global change. “Our society,” writes Brinkley, “could not survive without scientific and technological knowledge. But we would be
equally impoverished without humanistic knowledge as well. Science and technology teach us what we can do. Humanistic thinking can help us understand what we should do” (p. 48). Within the disciplines of engineering, the liberal arts can do even more: They can better teach young people how to do their jobs in this complicated era of globalization. As Coyle, Jamieson, and Oakes (2005) conclude Undergraduate students in engineering face a future in which they will need more than just a solid technical background to be successful. In setting the goals for any system they are asked to design, they will be expected to interact effectively with people of widely varying social and educational backgrounds. They will then be expected to work with people from many different disciplines to achieve these goals. They thus need educational experiences that help them develop these skills. (p. 1)
As an educator at an engineering school, it is my mission to make sure my students develop such skills. For me, the liberal arts, along with service-learning, are the best tools for this important job.
Resources American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), www.asee.org The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) is a nonprofit organization that is open to both individuals and institutions and works to promote research on engineering education. Founded in 1893, ASEE develops programming and policies that, according to its website, “enhance professional opportunities for engineering faculty members, and promote activities that support increased student enrollments in engineering and engineering technology colleges and universities.” Their annual conference has a liberal education division. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), www.ieee.org The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is the world’s largest professional association dedicated to the responsible development and use of technological innovation. There is a strong humanistic element to much of the association’s work, and the liberal arts often play an important role in IEEE publications and conferences. Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security Research and Practice, https://sites.google.com/site/ urbanagriculturephiladelphia This website, organized by University of Pennsylvania faculty member Domenic Vitiello in 2007, serves as a repository for research related to urban agriculture in the metropolitan Philadelphia region. It highlights work done by Vitiello, other academics, Penn students, and
300–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
community organizations and individuals. Of particular interest are the “harvest reports” available on the site, documents that quantify food production and trace distribution from urban farms and community gardens. Growing Power, www.growingpower.org Since 1993, this globally renowned urban farm on the North Side of Milwaukee has pioneered such growing
References and Further Readings Allen, W. (2012). The good food revolution: Growing healthy food, people, and communities. New York, NY: Gotham Books. Bayatpour, A. J. (2013, May 24). Amid violent death of teen, students plant new life in the park. Fox6.com. Retrieved from http://fox6now.com/2013/05/24/amid-violent-deathof-teen-students-plant-new-life-in-park Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brinkley, A. (2009, November 13). Half a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Newsweek, p. 48. Cockrall-King, J. (2012). Food and the city: Urban agriculture and the new food revolution. New York, NY: Prometheus Books. Coyle, E. J., Jamieson, L. H., & Oakes, W. C. (2005). EPICS: Engineering Projects in Community Service. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 1–12. Deans, T. (1999). Service-learning in two keys: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy in relation to John Dewey’s pragmatism. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 6(1), 15–29. Edwards, L. F. (2011). Writing between the past and the present. Perspectives on History, 49(1), 31–32. Grasso, D., & Burkins, M.B (Eds.). (2010). Holistic engineering education: Beyond technology. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media. Halford, B. (2004). Engineering for everyone. PRISM, 14(4), 22. Kimball, B. A. (1995). Orators & philosophers: A history of the idea of liberal education. New York, NY: College Board Publications. Lawson, L. J. (2005). City bountiful: A century of community gardening in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
techniques as aquaponics, vermiculture, and large-scale composting. In addition to providing a variety of educational programming and job training opportunities, the nonprofit organization is currently spearheading the development of the Institute for Urban Agriculture and Nutrition. This body, organized in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, hopes to provide the burgeoning field of urban agriculture with academic support.
Nairn, M., & Vitiello, D. (2009). Lush lots: Everyday urban agriculture from gardening to community food security. Harvard Design Magazine, 31, 1–8. Nye, D. E. (2006). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Paris, D. C., & Kimball, B. A. (2000). Liberal education: An overlapping pragmatic consensus. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 143–158. Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Petty, K. (2013, April 22). Obama administration commits $3.1 billion to STEM education. Independent Voter Network. Retrieved from http://ivn.us/2013/04/22/obamaadministration-commits-3–1-billion-to-stem-education Saltmarsh, J. (2000). Emerson’s prophecy. In I. Harkavy & B. M. Donavan (Eds.), Connecting past and present: Concepts and models for service-learning in history (pp. 43–60). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Saltmarsh, J. (2010). Changing pedagogies. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions (Vol. 1, pp. 331–352). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Schmid, J. (2004, December 5). Still separate and unequal: A dream derailed. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 5, 2004, p. A1+. Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–35. Student #1. (2013, May 24). Class assessment paper. Spring 2013 University Scholars Program, Milwaukee School of Engineering. Student #2. (2013, May 24). Class assessment paper. Spring 2013 University Scholars Program, Milwaukee School of Engineering. Student #3. (2013, May 23). Class assessment paper. Spring 2013 University Scholars Program, Milwaukee School of Engineering.
41 INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH SERVICE-LEARNING TIM KRAUSE University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point
T
he goal of this chapter is to discuss the various roles that Web-based and mobile technologies might play in helping faculty, staff, students, and their partners participate in meaningful, sustainable service-learning projects. This chapter begins by outlining some of the key challenges associated with managing service-learning projects or programs and includes a review of the corresponding literature. The following sections then outline a variety of free and open source tools and best practices for helping those who oversee servicelearning projects better manage various aspects of them. Those aspects include project management, time management, communication, document sharing, project integrity, and project assessment. The chapter ends with implications for service-learning practitioners and a discussion of the need to study further the efficacy of various approaches to managing service-learning projects and programs. This is, however, a chapter about more than technology. Because it discusses the role that technology might play in helping to manage service-learning projects, it must also include information on lessons learned and best practices surrounding each of the aspects of service-learning just outlined. In discussing project management, for example, it will be important to share key lessons learned in managing projects effectively in order to then make recommendations around facilitating technologies.
Challenges Sustaining ServiceLearning Programs The model of service-learning assumed and supported by this chapter is different from more time-bound opportunities like one-time special events, such as helping to build a Habitat for Humanity home or serving meals at a shelter. Although these activities, with active reflection on the part of the learner, can be valuable experiences, this chapter focuses on meaningful and structured opportunities that are often much more extensive in terms of time commitment. Under these circumstances, students might work as a team member and contribute hundreds of hours of their expertise. For example, they may construct a membership database or build an extensive website for local organizations. Additionally, projects may span multiple semesters and involve a large number of teams. Barbara Holland (2001) also acknowledges the importance of mutually beneficial, sustained partnerships with community partners as one of the five components of an institutionalized and sustainable community engagement effort. These types of servicelearning relationships and projects create unique situations best be described using Malcom S. Knowles’s (Forrest & Peterson, 2006) concept of andragogy, a term originally coined to distinguish differences between how adults typically learn when contrasted with the learning behaviors of children. However, the six basic tenets of andragogy also effectively describe many of the opportunities and
301
302–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
challenges associated with longer term engagements in service-learning relationships. In these situations, the assumption is that learners are self-directed, can contribute life experience, are ready to learn, need the opportunity for immediate application, require a sense of information relevancy, and are motivated when entering the learning environment (Forrest & Peterson, 2006). When thinking about these attributes of any learner, however, it is important to recognize that these six tenets describe an idealized adult learner. Millicent Kelly (2013) contrasts that idealized learner, for example, with the reality that adult learners also often place a premium on their time because of all of the other commitments they may have in their lives. The need to balance time with the outcomes expected of service-learning projects is, therefore, one of the reasons it is important to discuss tracking time spent on servicelearning projects later in this chapter. Implicitly emerging from these observations is the reality that some additional level of support will be required if these more significant service-learning projects are to succeed. Likewise, if a service-learning program has as its goals the six facets just described, program coordinators also need to consider the assessment of those projects to ensure they are effectively accomplishing those goals.
Review of Literature With respect to service-learning, it is often noted that “projects are not necessarily meant to be sustained. They exist for the entities they serve, and when goals have been met, the project ends” (Robinson, 2009, p. 60). In many situations this may be appropriate and necessary. However, there are other service-learning projects that need to be sustained over a longer period. In these situations, students may not only require a more structured approach to supervision and mentorship (Evans & Forbes, 2012), but they may also need more advanced tools and technologies to aid in the successful completion of their service-learning experiences. Although the literature describes service-learning that is not only pervasive as an approach and most certainly of value to students and participating organizations, it does not currently or accurately describe situations where an organization’s needs might be longer term. Nor does it help to recognize the role that an institution’s reputation for delivering impactful service-learning might be of significant concern. For example, Susan Youngblood and Jo Mackiewicz (2013) describe a project where students contributed to the development of a “Service-learning Opportunities in Technical Communication (SLOT-C) Database,” designed to broaden the base of service-learning projects and organizations available to instructors and their students. Although it is also true that meals must be served in a timely fashion and supporting walls erected
properly in new homes, projects like the SLOT-C Database are different in that they are capstone experiences for students. As such, they require students to marshal most of their educational experiences—further complicating what we are expecting them to deliver to their partner organizations. With respect to complexity, the literature also appropriately points out that to be successful, service-learning partnerships need to have a simple structure (Vidal et al., 2002). This is a point that cannot be stated strongly enough. Although the literature points primarily to the structure of the relationship, one should recognize that decisions made about adding technology to a project also impact the structure of the relationship. Choices should be made that facilitate projects and make it easier for everyone to work together. Choices that complicate the relationship should be avoided. As such, organizers must actively solicit feedback about technology choices from all stakeholders to ensure that those choices will work effectively for everyone.
Project and Time Management Relative to the choices surrounding project facilitation, the heart of successful, larger service-learning projects is effective project and time management. Expecting students and their partner organizations to understand intuitively that they need a plan for their work typically results in no plan and often last-minute, rushed, mediocre work. For students in a computing program, for example, project management may be a more natural fit than for other disciplines. However, project management does not necessarily need to be about teaching or reinforcing a formalized methodology but about facilitating basic principles that can apply to any kind of service-learning project. For larger projects, students should think about two key aspects of their work: (1) milestones and (2) tasks. A milestone is a significant checkpoint in a project. It might be a rough draft, a home-page design, or a working prototype of a computer program. One of the main differentiators of a milestone is there is work that leads to a milestone but none associated with the milestone itself. Tasks, on the other hand, do require work and should ultimately culminate in a milestone. A combination of tasks and milestones then culminate in a project plan. Ultimately, students, their partner organizations, and the supervising faculty member should all be able to check progress periodically against the project plan to understand how things are going. The goal isn’t to add busywork to the process but to provide everyone an opportunity to identify problems when they occur, correct the plan as necessary, and hopefully still deliver a successful final project. Without a plan to use as a benchmark, it becomes nearly impossible to identify problems that might be adding undue risk to the project.
41. Integrating Technology With Service-Learning–•–303
There are a number of options available for helping students to manage tasks and milestones. All of the examples provided in this chapter have Web-based versions (meaning they are Mac and PC compatible), and all offer free options. One of the easiest to use is Trello, a Web- and mobile-based application that sorts tasks into visual cards (milestones). Trello also allows its users to share their plans with others. Supervising faculty members should be aware that with this approach they may be actively subscribed to the plans of a number of teams, increasing the complexity of what the supervisors need to oversee. Some open source options provide a common platform for everyone to use that can help alleviate this issue. However, if students are working on more complex projects, a shared application with some additional project management functionality may make more sense. Freedcamp, as one example, is a free collaborative project management website that allows users to manage to-do lists, set milestones, track time, and perform basic file sharing. The site also allows users to set custom access levels for client organizations. One of the additional benefits of managing servicelearning engagements as projects is that it becomes easier to think about assessment. Although a later section offers additional thoughts on project and program assessment, the right project management tool can do much to facilitate this kind of feedback as well. Sites like Apptivo, for example, not only allow for the same kind of project management afforded by Freedcamp but also allow users to keep track of their time as they complete their projects. With this information, it becomes much easier to not only track progress but to also communicate to partner organizations about how things are progressing and how much effort is being expended. In many situations, it is my experience that our partners often underestimate the amount of effort that might go into the work completed by students. Sites like Apptivo make it much easier to track and then communicate that information back to our partners. The resources mentioned so far are generically referred to by the software industry as “freemium” offerings, which means that the sponsoring organization will make a free version of their service available to users but offer any variety of upgrades for a fee. While this may be appealing to those of us with limited resources, it does create two potential challenges. First, the freemium versions of these resources might not offer everything needed to manage some service-learning projects. The second is that freemium versions of any software are extremely volatile and may not be available to users over the long term because many companies offering freemium versions discover that they are unable to make freemium products financially sustainable (those companies have to convert a reasonable number of users to paying customers). The alternative to freemium resources is to consider hosting an open source project management application. It is important to note that this option requires either a fair amount of technical sophistication on behalf of faculty or staff, or it requires access to information technology staff
who may be available to help with support. In this area, the two most frequently cited applications are dotProject and Collabtive. Both provide the same functionality as the hosted solutions described earlier in this section. For computer science projects, dotProject also has the added advantage of being very similar in functionality and form to industry standard project management tools like Microsoft Project. Choosing the right project management solution is a crucial decision for all service-learning partners. On the one hand, think about the features that are needed to effectively manage service-learning projects and collect the data needed to report back to partner organizations and other stakeholders. On the other hand, if one were to select a project management solution that is at all cumbersome to use, students will not use it. The solutions mentioned in this section are all meant to strike a balance between those competing demands. Before making a decision, test the solutions that feel the most promising; use them to manage one of your own projects and assess how it helps with that process, how cumbersome it is to use, and ultimately how useful it is. In making this assessment, keep in mind that employing a different, perhaps much lower, level of technology might be more appropriate. In the case of project management, students and their teams might be asked simply to keep track of their tasks, milestones, and time using an Excel spreadsheet, for example.
Communication Apart from time management, effective communication poses the next greatest challenge in ensuring successful service-learning experiences. To further complicate the issue, students may also complete a significant amount of work at a distance from their partner organizations. In some situations, the organization may lack the physical space for students to work; in others, the students’ schedules might not permit them to work at their partner organization or to work at the same time as each other. Regardless of circumstance, students often haven’t thought much about how they will communicate with their partners and often experience anxiety over having to do so. And although technology can facilitate communication, students need help in understanding that their partners should dictate how communication will take place. Within reason, if the partner prefers in-person meetings, phone calls, or emails, then that is how communication needs to take place. Students are, however, encouraged to offer suggestions regarding ways that communication might take place with their clients. This might mean sharing documents with a Web service like Dropbox or holding a meeting using a Google Hangout. Whenever possible, encourage students to communicate with each other and their clients in a semipublic fashion. Semipublic means ensuring all communication is visible to all project stakeholders whenever practical. In terms of facilitating technology, email and discussion boards are two of the best choices. Project management
304–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
platforms like Apptivo and Freedcamp, discussed earlier, provide messaging options for teammates to use when communicating with each other. Both also provide a record of communication that can be helpful in clearing up any misunderstandings that invariably arise. One of the most difficult challenges associated with managing service-learning projects is getting students to communicate with each other and their partners. As the instructor of the course, facilitate a first meeting with clients and agree on expectations for when and how often communication will take place. Remind students that meetings are also a form of communication and that technology may also serve a role here as well. For place-bound clients or students, Google Hangouts and Skype are two free alternatives for voice and video conferencing that might be appropriate. Last, remind students that partners rarely, if ever, complain about a team overcommunicating with them. Communication among immediate team members is also an important consideration, and students have much more latitude about how they choose to do so than they do with their clients. Students are often more informal and impulsive with their communication than they are when communicating with their clients. Although they often prefer texting over any other technology, suggest to students that something like a Facebook group might be a more appropriate way to communicate with each other in terms of allowing them to keep a more permanent record of their conversations. In this case, instructors should not participate in the Facebook groups, allowing students the opportunity to talk openly and candidly with each other about their projects. If students are going to use Facebook, they will need to decide whether their group is a closed one, available only to them, or if they want to allow others to see and participate with the group. Students should also be reminded that there is no guarantee that others, like their clients, won’t see the group’s conversation.
Document Management and Sharing Many technology-oriented service-learning projects may result in the creation of a significant number of documents and files. Coordinating versions between members of the team and their partner organization can be a daunting task. Many teams default to emailing versions when they need to share updates, but this can cause difficulties in knowing which version is most current, or in ignoring earlier changes to documents. There are some excellent choices available for document management and sharing. Many of the project management platforms mentioned earlier have the ability for teams to share documents in the same environment. This is an appealing approach because it allows the team to manage many, if not all, aspects of their platform in one location. However, not all of the platforms allow client organizations to access them, and not all of the platforms provide an interface for sharing documents that is easy and intuitive to
use. And in some cases, the complexity of the platform may inhibit many partners from wanting to use that platform. Alternatively, teams might consider Google Drive (Google Docs) or Dropbox as free, relatively easy ways to facilitate document sharing across all stakeholder groups.
Program and Project Assessment In thinking about project and program assessment, Patrick Poon, Tsang Sing Chan, and Lianxi Zhou (2011) offer a variety of measurements ranging from social responsibility and motivation to problem solving and the development of management skills. They also point out the importance of soliciting feedback from our service-learning partners. It is worth acknowledging that there are many approaches available for assessing and benchmarking service-learning programs. Andrew Furco and William Miller (2009) do an excellent job of outlining various approaches, including the Carnegie community engagement framework. The goal of this section is not to try and reinvent any of these approaches but to discuss a couple of technology-facilitated approaches for collecting general feedback about both servicelearning projects and programs. The choices made with respect to project and time management should provide a variety of inputs into this kind of assessment. The data from your software application should provide a variety of quantitative data points to help answer assessment questions including, but not limited to, What was the work completed? Were tasks completed on time? If they were late, how late were they? Why were they late? How much time did the work take? Was it the amount of time expected? If it wasn’t, why not?
By definition, service-learning lends itself particularly well to the kind of reflection and self-reflection that can also assist with assessment efforts. However, open-ended reflection, as valuable as it is, can be difficult to synthesize into program assessment. To allow for more directed feedback on service-learning projects, online sites like SurveyMonkey offer a free and convenient way to survey partner organizations regarding their experience with students and their projects. The site allows for a variety of types of questions, formatting of surveys, and analysis of the results. With appropriate timing and a relatively brief survey, programs such as UW-Stevens Point often see response rates approaching 100% from their partners. Sidebar 41.1 is a sample of the survey used with partner organizations. It is also important to follow up with partners three to six months out from the project— initial perceptions of the experience can sometimes change dramatically as the partner uses the work completed by their student team. Although it may difficult to hear this kind of feedback, it is important to collect if a servicelearning program is to be sustainable over the long term.
41. Integrating Technology With Service-Learning–•–305
Sidebar 41.1
Survey of Partner Organizations
[Scale: Excellent, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Unacceptable, N/A] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Our project team communicated with us in a timely fashion. Our project team understood what our needs were. Our project team met deadlines. Our project team successfully solved problems and addressed any concerns when they arose. Our project team took initiative. Our project team ran effective, productive meetings. Our project team was thorough in delivering a final product. Our project team provided appropriate documentation and training. Overall, we are satisfied with the final results of our work together. We would recommend this experience to other organizations.
Sidebar 41.2
Self and Peer Review of Student Work
[Scale: Excellent, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Unacceptable, N/A] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Ability to work with other team members Ability to work with client personnel Ability to cooperate Ability to follow directions Ability to meet deadlines Problem-solving ability Reliability Project leadership skills Initiative Technical knowledge Overall quality of work Overall quantity of work
Student feedback is also an important part of the process and should be completed in addition to any openended reflection students may have completed. The goal is not only to understand how effectively students worked with each other but to also allow instructors an opportunity to think about how to place students in groups and anticipate issues in future projects. Sidebar 41.2 is an example of an instrument for collecting that information through a tool such as SurveyMonkey.
that relationships between individuals and organizations are appropriately sustainable. Many postsecondary schools are requiring service-learning experiences as requirements for graduation. Likely those requirements will encompass a variety of possible experiences for students. For those students who embark on lengthier service-learning engagements, the role of technology in facilitating the sustainability of relationships is something that needs to be more carefully researched.
Resources Conclusion and Implications Service-learning, first and foremost, is about the rich experiences students should have with partner organizations and the benefits afforded to everyone involved. However, technology has the potential to play a positive role in helping everyone involved have a successful experience and to provide input into areas where a service-learning program could benefit from improvement. Technology also has the opportunity to ensure that projects are not only successfully completed but
Program and Project Assessment SurveyMonkey, www.surveymonkey.com Project Management Apptivo, www.apptivo.com/ Collabtive, http://collabtive.o-dyn.de/ dotProject, www.dotproject.net Freedcamp, www.freedcamp.com Trello, www.trello.com
306–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
References and Further Readings Evans, R. R., & Forbes, L. (2012). Mentoring the “net generation”: Faculty perspectives in health education. College Student Journal, 46(2), 397–404. Forrest, S. P., & Peterson, T. O. (2006). It’s called andragogy. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(1), 113–122. Furco, A., & Miller, W. (2009). Issues in benchmarking and assessing institutional engagement. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 47–54. Holland, B. A. (2001, Summer). A comprehensive model for assessing service-learning and community-university partnerships. New Directions for Higher Education [Special issue], 114, 51–60. Kelly, M. J. (2013). Beyond classroom borders: Incorporating collaborative service learning for the adult student. Adult Learning, 24(2), 82–84.
Poon, P., Chan, T. S., & Zhou, L. (2011). Implementation of service-learning in business education: Issues and challenges. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 22(3), 185–192. Robinson, M. (2009). Strengthening skills and ties through service-learning. Teaching Music, 17(3), 60. Vidal, A., Nye, N., Walker, C., Manjarrez, C., Romanik, C. (with Corvington, P., Ferryman, K., Freiberg, S., & Kim, D.). (2002). Lessons from the community outreach partnership center program. Retrieved from http:// cpn.org/topics/youth/highered/pdfs/COPC_Program .pdf Youngblood, S. A., & Mackiewicz, J. (2013). Lessons in service learning: Developing the service learning opportunities in technical communication (SLOT-C) database. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(3), 260–283.
42 UNDERGRADUATE TECHNOCRATS Educating Future Scientists to Become Citizens RUTH CRONJE AND LAURELYN SANDKAMP University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire
U
ndergraduates are the future experts we will consult when negotiating medical, agricultural, and environmental policy. They are also, ideally, citizens with long futures ahead of them performing the public work of democracy. Unfortunately, few undergraduates are exposed to a civic science curriculum that introduces them to the issues that arise when public policy meets science. Equally regrettably, few civic engagement experiences confront students with the most foundational questions about the compatibility of scientific authority and participatory democracy. Yet as citizens, we are daily confronted by public issues with scientific or technical dimensions, requiring science and democracy to find a common ground. This chapter describes an undergraduate course organized around a largely unscripted civic engagement project to motivate the environmental stewardship of pollinator species; with modifications of readings, this course could be adapted to a wide range of environmental issues. Students learn about the ecological and economic importance of pollinators and the anthropogenic threats that are currently reducing the abundance, diversity, and ecological effectiveness of these species. Then, students embark on community engagement activities to raise awareness of pollinators as well as encourage public efforts to create pollinator-friendly habitat. With its emphasis both on civic engagement and environmental science, a course like this offers students the opportunity to confront issues inherent in bringing scientific information to bear on public work and to consider the seeming incompatibility of science and democracy, helping students find a common space for
rational deliberation within both. Finally, it asks students to consider the human rights and justice dimensions of civic science issues.
Expanded Democracy: Boyte’s Citizen Solution Approach In our classroom experience, undergraduates are like the citizens Harry C. Boyte (2008) describes in The Citizen Solution, who tend to believe that their duty as citizens in a democracy is limited to voting. Boyte wishes to replace the “vending machine” model of democracy—with citizens inserting their vote and expecting to have desirable policies delivered to them by the politicians they elect— with a more demanding and empowering definition of democracy that sees a public life working to solve public problems as the right and responsibility of every citizen (2008). In The Citizen Solution, he offers a greatly expanded populist definition of democracy in which citizens themselves take direct action to do the daily public work required to make communities function. Boyte believes not only that the intrinsic logic of democracy demands full citizen participation, but that citizens’ varied expertise is a civic resource that, when deployed collectively, can lead to superior public policies (2009). Thus, Boyte rejects the idea that only those citizens with expertise in science or government—he calls them “technocrats”—should have the authority to drive public action. A commitment to full citizen participation, then, simultaneously commits Boyte to valuing multiple forms 307
308–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
of expertise, including wisdom passed down by elders, spiritual insights, and local and craft knowledge, as well as what he calls the “common sense of the community” (2008, p. 2). In this way, Boyte seeks to equalize and empower not only citizens’ civic authority but also their epistemic authority. Boyte’s view of populist democracy is ideologically compatible with the mission of the service-learning curriculum: to position students’ learning of ideas within a context of practical study and action to address social problems that confront society (Jacoby & Associates, 1996). As Barbara Jacoby points out, the most strident objections to service-learning in higher education have hailed from within: from faculty who believe that such practical activities divert students from mastery of a body of disciplinary knowledge that has traditionally been regarded as the main mission of the undergraduate curriculum. Boyte’s challenge to technocrats, of course, challenges the epistemic authority of this body of knowledge; thus, the “technocrat problem” featured in this course drives straight to the heart of one dimension of resistance to the service-learning project that has plagued it from the start. Boyte’s commitment to a populist democracy is informed by such influential political thinkers as John Dewey (1927) and Jürgen Habermas (1984, 1987), whose work has advanced understanding and refined practice of rational deliberation and who advocate extending these opportunities to all citizens. As John Gastil & William M. Keith (2005) have argued, inclusive deliberation is by no means an entrenched American value; rather, it is a recent and somewhat precarious trend whose viability is by no means either perfected or ensured. Using a variety of strategies to enlist public participation that go well beyond voting to include deliberative polling, study groups, consensus conferences, and citizen juries (Gastil & Levine, 2005), proponents of democratic deliberation are designing and testing ways to bring power more directly to the people. Many people—including many undergraduates— find the idea of decision making of, by, and for the people an exciting one. Yet, however compelling this notion of deliberative empowerment, Boyte’s radical relocation of epistemic authority into the hands of everyday citizens tends to come as a challenge to undergraduates. The undergraduate science curriculum is still primarily oriented toward inculcating the idea that scientific procedures are the most valid way to create knowledge. It is no great leap in logic for students to conclude that knowledge gained by scientific procedures should trump all other considerations in questions of public policy and that a public that routinely rejects scientific authority as a basis for its policy decisions is to be despised as ignorant and irrational. These are sentiments we have often heard students express in the classroom. Thus, without necessarily making it a deliberate element of the curriculum, most undergraduate science departments nonetheless create firm adherents to the “public deficit
model” of public understanding of science (Wynne, 1992). By the time they graduate, students seem to believe that the desirable objectivity of scientific procedures inoculates scientific knowledge against the very undesirable subjectivity that Boyte’s valorization of “folk” knowledge and values would welcome into the democratic process. Boyte’s provocations can leave undergraduates seriously confused. If democracy requires inclusive empowerment of all citizens, including those without scientific training who are perhaps ignorant of scientific evidence salient to a given policy question, are democracy and scientific authority fundamentally at odds? If scientific knowledge is, by definition, the only form of knowledge that relies on a systematic process that insists upon empirical evidence gathered under conditions that control for confounders and bias, then shouldn’t scientific knowledge trump any other form of knowledge, even at the cost of sacrificing the finer points of populist democracy? If a fully participatory democracy requires the flattening of expertise hierarchies, then what is the proper role for scientific authority in policy decisions? Is scientific evidence really no more than yet another viewpoint? To give, as Boyte would, everyday folk knowledge and aesthetic and cultural preferences both the same civic force and the same epistemic force as the expertise and evidence resulting from scientific inquiry, then, is no small matter: It requires students to understand and act upon some of the most complex issues in both scientific and political philosophy. An environmental civic engagement course, described in this chapter, offers the opportunity for students to grapple with these issues and thereby achieve a richer understanding of both democracy and science. Built into the course are essential tensions between “scientific” knowledge—in this case, recent research regarding the safety of pesticides for both pollinator species as well as the humans who apply them—versus our public values and preferences for low-cost, convenient food that drive our commercial food production and distribution system; our commitment to residential landscaping that features a monoculture of lawns; and folk knowledge that regards bees as dangerous and undesirable. Civic learning must challenge undergraduates, all well on their way to future careers as technocrats, to consider definitions of democracy that call into question the epistemic authority of the very academic knowledge that they are being rewarded to master in their other classes; ideally, this learning will avoid leading students to “right” answers or driving them toward any preconceived position on these questions.
The Pilot Course We offered a pilot version of this course to honors students in spring 2012 at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (a liberal arts teaching university that is part of the University of Wisconsin System); supplemental funding
42. Undergraduate Technocrats–•–309
for community outreach was provided by the Wisconsin Environmental Education Board. We explicitly organized the course along the lines suggested by Boyte (2008) in his book The Citizen Solution, which was required reading for the course. Students enrolled in the course hailed from many majors—quite a few were biology majors with an interest in ecological studies, but the course also attracted a Spanish major, an economics major, two computer science majors, and a philosophy major. All of the students were White and between the ages of 18 and 25. Six were male and five were female. Students prepared “technical reports” that synthesized the peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to important questions relevant to pollinator stewardship—such as whether native pollinators are as important as honeybees (not native to the United States) in pollinating food crops and whether the agricultural use of pesticides was having a detrimental impact on native pollinator species. Students held a house values meeting, powermapped (brainstormed lists of individuals and organizations with a stake in pollinator stewardship who could be regarded as “power holders” in our community and therefore potential resources or obstacles to the project), and conducted one-to-one interviews as advocated by Boyte. They then formed teams to prepare public outreach materials in various media, including print, film, and posters, to deliver to residents of Eau Claire (a small city of nearly 60,000 in west-central Wisconsin) and greater Wisconsin to empower and promote pollinator stewardship behavior. Finally, students embarked on a series of publicity activities, including addressing neighborhood associations and planting a pollinator habitat in a public park, to enlist community residents in pollinator stewardship.
What We Learned While our pilot offering of this course should in no way be construed as a systematic and controlled investigation to test a pedagogical hypothesis, we did nonetheless collect material that provides preliminary feedback from students. In addition to the community outreach materials previously described, we collected a final reflection from each student (a copy of the prompts are available from the authors) and asked them to complete an online evaluation instrument using the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) system (also available upon request). These student responses, read and interpreted by both of us, seemed to display the presence of Boytian themes of participatory democracy: a sense of civic empowerment and civic responsibility and of shared epistemic authority. (It is important to note that because we were both members of the class—one of us the instructor and one an enrolled student—our interpretations of these student writings was potentially biased by our preexisting sense of classroom meanings and community events; at the same time, our “insider” status as members of this pilot course provided
us with a richer hermeneutic basis for our readings of these materials.) For example, the following passage from a final reflection demonstrates this student’s sense of civic empowerment and responsibility: This course has been tremendously empowering for me . . . I have also learned how to empower others to achieve common goals. This course has helped me to redefine the concept of public life. Before this course, I thought of public life as something for politicians or attention-seekers—or as a lifestyle requiring a great deal of courage and refinement. After taking this course (and particularly after my one-on-one and the North River Fronts Neighborhood Association meeting), I really began to see public life as a series of conversations with regular people. Now I feel that public life is really about making yourself available for conversations and about willingness to connect with people to get things done.
Students grappled with the idea of co-creating knowledge and sharing epistemic authority even as they wrestled with the tension to implement their environmentalist agenda, as this passage indicates: Some competing community interests that bear on the pollinator project are things like wanting to use pesticides in private yards and gardens, and thinking that bees are negative because they pose a threat by stinging. I have learned to use scientific evidence in a non-technocratic manner to spread knowledge that can oppose these ideas, while still being respectful and helping the person learn on their own, not just shoving information in their faces. I have learned this technique is much more effective and creates greater attitude change, which will result hopefully in a greater behavioral change.
Yet students’ final reflections also clearly reflected their ongoing struggle to determine how to balance their project agenda (in this case, promoting pollinator stewardship) with the need for shared epistemic authority. For example, in this passage from a final reflection, we see a student still oriented more toward others as potential resources in a predetermined agenda than as co-creators of an agenda that may or may not comply with the goals of pollinator stewardship: This course taught me the difference between your public life and your private life. The relationships that are built in public life are more business-oriented in the sense that the questions you ask are very purposeful and leading. You try to learn about a person’s passions not only because you are interested, but because you want to see whether they would be a potential participant in your project or have resources that could be helpful.
It seems clear that this student did not necessarily regard community members as possessing “expertise” that could compete with that of the scientific literature they’d consulted but instead as “resources” that would enable the class to implement its pollinator stewardship agenda by
310–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
providing garden space or labor, donating plants, or helping distribute outreach materials. Because the students found the scientific information on the importance of pollinators and the danger of pesticides convincing, it was a challenge for them to seek ways to integrate the values of bee-fearing homeowners or local businesses that sell pesticide into the project. Our attempts to share epistemic authority also met with an unexpected challenge from another direction: Community members we interacted with demonstrated a knee-jerk deferral to technocratic authority that seemed insurmountable. As Daniel Kleinman, Maria Powell, Joshua Grice, Judith Adrian, and Carol Lobes (2007) have noted, scientists work within institutions that have been granted enormous power within our society; not surprisingly, Eau Claire residents felt neither inclined nor, apparently, empowered to question even the semblance of such expertise embodied by a rhetoric professor and her undergraduate students! In fact, we were surprised by how readily residents yielded their preferences to perceived scientific authority: One resident organizing a habitat installation in a public park even called us to get our “permission” for the species list her community organization wanted to plant. Residents often seemed nonplussed, almost disbelieving, when we assured them that there are many pollinator-friendly plants and that they could design perfectly acceptable pollinator habitats around many of their own plant preferences. Instructions, not choice or power, appeared to be what many community members wanted. The norms supporting the authority of technocrats were too strong to break down in a 15-week course, although public responses like this also gave us plenty of fodder for classwide discussion! To implement a Boytian civic science project, then, our students had to question not only their own technocratic leanings but those of their community partners. Nonetheless, the course brought the essential tensions between scientific authority and civic empowerment to the surface for our students to note and navigate and did so in a way that obviously instilled in students a sense of community connection and responsibility, as attested to by one student’s claim that “I feel much more empowered and
more connected with my community after this class than I have ever felt in my previous 23 years of living in Eau Claire.”
References and Further Readings
deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century (pp. 3–17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action— reason and the rationalization of society (Vol I; T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Boyte, H. C. (2008). The citizen solution: How you can make a difference. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press. Boyte, H. C. (2009). Civic agency and the cult of the expert. Dayton, OH: The Kettering Foundation. Dewey, J. (1927). The search for the great community. In A. Swallow (Ed.), The public and its problems (pp. 143–184). Athens: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press. Gastil, J., & Keith, W. M. (2005). A nation that (sometimes) likes to talk: A brief history of public deliberation in the United States. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The
Conclusion Our nation’s track record on implementing environmental policies informed by the best scientific evidence while respecting a plurality of perspectives seems disappointing; in our opinion, American universities must step up with more serious and effective efforts to prepare undergraduates to negotiate these wicked problems. As a very modest start, we need to develop undergraduate civic engagement opportunities deliberately designed to spark student awareness of the epistemic dilemmas they will confront as citizen experts, foster their reflection on the tensions inherent between inclusive deliberation and scientific authority, and develop their understanding of the common deliberative processes that legitimize both democratic and scientific reasoning. By plunging our students into authentic sites of civic science, it is possible to set up conditions that challenge them to contemplate the epistemic authority of science and reflect upon its rightful role in democratic deliberation. On the basis of our experience in the pilot course, we have devised two exercises (Appendix A and Appendix B) designed to confront students with the need to reflect on both the strengths and the limits of scientific knowledge to empower and motivate public environmental stewardship. The environmental civic engagement course described herein offers students an experience that challenges them to understand both democracy and science as forms of deliberative reasoning and provide them with a model of rational deliberation they can use in public work. By taking our students on a journey straight into the heart of scientific and civic authority, we enrich their understanding of themselves as future scientists. By confronting them with amplified definitions of democracy and citizenship, we enrich their future action as citizens. A truly inclusive democracy of, by, and for the people must include the “technocrats” our undergraduates will become.
42. Undergraduate Technocrats–•–311 Habermas, J. (1987). The uncoupling of system and lifeworld. In J. Habermas, The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2; T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Jacoby, B., & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kleinman, D. L., Powell, M., Grice, J., Adrian, J., & Lobes, C. (2007). A toolkit for democratizing science and technology
policy: The practical mechanics of organizing a consensus conference. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(2), 154–169. Ross, D. (2011). Course review: Environmental rhetoric, ethics, and policy—Teaching engagement. Present Tense, 2(1), 1–9. Wynne, B. (1992). Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors? Public Understanding of Science, 1, 37–43.
Appendix A Pesticide Justice Case Objective: To integrate all three of the dimensions of civic learning recommended by Joel Westheimer & Joseph Kahne (2004) to promote enriched notions of democracy in undergraduate civic science courses. Westheimer and Kahne (2004) note that civic learning experiences can foster different and even contradictory notions of democracy. They contend that courses that conceptualize civic agency mainly as volunteerism may be promulgating a type of citizen that is ill-prepared to analyze and participate in systemic solutions to overarching social problems, creating citizens good at obedience and patriotism, but not necessarily able to control power and, if necessary, overthrow tyrants. Westheimer and Kahne advocate a kind of civic education that also seeks to develop students’ ability to analyze power structures and evaluate their impact on justice. In an environmental civic agency course, we advocate adding these participatory and justice-oriented “layers” by integrating materials, like those in the following list, that help students explore themes of “pesticide justice”—an exploration of the economic, political, and cultural systems that motivate widespread use of pesticides in our country. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen: The politics of educating for democracy. American Education Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.
Background and Context for Students The use of agricultural inputs such as pesticides has increased steadily since World War II. Neonicotinoids, a class of systemic neurological impulse-blocking chemicals related to nicotine, are one of the fastest-growing classes of pesticides, representing approximately 24% of the global insecticide market in 2008. Economic advantages to the use of neonicotinoids include their ability to disperse throughout and protect all parts of the crop, their ability to be applied in a variety of ways, and their lower toxicity in vertebrates (Hopwood et al., 2012). Many of the estimated 2.4 million U.S. farm workers are exposed to pesticides like neonicotinoids during the process of crop production. However, a growing number of studies, most in vitro, are beginning to accrue evidence that neonicotinoids can pose risks to human cells (Calderon-Segura et al., 2011; Costa et al., 2008; Hernandez et al., 2008; Kocuman, Rencüzog˘ulları, & Topaktas¸, 2012; Park et al., 2012).
Discussion Questions 1. What forces—economic, political, and cultural—motivate the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in U.S. agriculture? 2. Does scientific evidence from studies appear to be informing U.S. agricultural policy on the use of neonicotinoids? What role should such scientific evidence, optimally, have on policy decisions? 3. What contributions do alternative types of knowledge, including anecdotal knowledge, folk knowledge, and ethical knowledge, have to make to questions about the justice and usefulness of pesticides? Do some types of knowledge seem more reliable or useful than others? Why? 4. Even if we’re unconcerned about the possible effects neonicotinoids might have on pollinator species, at what point do we regard scientific evidence of a human pesticide risk sufficient to morally legitimize public action to restrict or ban their use? 5. What steps could citizens take to influence U.S. pesticide policy?
312–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Procedure 1. Assign articles listed in the following Links and Readings section for students to read in advance of class. 2. In class, provide students with the information included in the Background and Context for Students section. 3. Ask students to assemble for a discussion of the questions included in the Discussion Questions section of this lesson plan.
Links and Readings Calderon-Segura, M., Gómez-Arroyo, S., Villalobos-Pietrini, R., Martínez-Valenzuela, C., Carbajal-López, Y., del Carmen Calderón-Ezquerro, M., . . . & Bañuelos-Ruíz, E. (2012). Evaluation of genotoxic and cytotoxic effects in human peripheral blood lymphocytes exposed in vitro to neonicotinoid insecticides news. Journal of Toxicology, 2012, 612647. Costa, C., Silvaric, V., Melchinib, A., Cataniab, S., Heffronc, J. J., Trovatob, A., & De Pasqualeb, R. (2009). Genotoxicity of imidacloprid in relation to metabolic activation and composition of the commercial product. Mutation Research, 672, 40–44. Hernandez, A. F., Casado, I., Pena, G., Gil, F., Villanueva, E., & Pla, A. (2008). Low level of exposure to pesticides leads to lung dysfunction in occupationally exposed subjects. Inhalation Toxicology, 20, 839–849. doi:10.1080/08958370801905524 Hopwood, J., Vaughan, M., Shepherd, M., Biddinger, D., Mader, E., Black, S. H., & Mazzacano, C. (2012). Are neonicotinoids killing bees? Retrieved from http://www.xerces.org/neonicotinoids-and-bees/ Kocuman, A. Y., Rencüzog˘ulları, E., & Topaktas¸, M. (2012). In vitro investigation of genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of thiacloprid in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Environmental Toxicology, 29(6), 631–641. doi:10.1002/ tox.21790 Park, Y., Kim, Y., Kim, J., Yoon, K. S., Clark, J., Lee, J., & Park, Y. (2013). Imadacloprid, a neonicotinoid insecticide, potentiates adipogenesis in 3T3-L1adipocytes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61(1), 255–259. doi:10.1021/jf3039814
Appendix B What Are Good Reasons Lesson Objectives: To help undergraduate students become familiar with standards of civic deliberation; to empower undergraduates to look for evidence of those standards at work in a string of documents that are clearly in conversation with each other. This exercise could be used as a major assignment in an environmental civic science course like the one described in this chapter. Undergraduates will probably require guidance as they learn to apply the standards of deliberative democracy to the analysis of scientific documents.
Materials We recommend assigning students to read three articles published in Science (see following list of readings) and then relate the analytic frame to these articles, both because the Science articles sparked the lively subsequent discursive exchange captured in these recommended documents, and because these three articles represent a particularly contained and clear example of scientific deliberation in action. The Spark: Scientists as Rational Deliberators Henry, M., Béguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J. F., Aupinel, P., . . . & Decourtye, A. (2012). A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science, 336(6079), 348–350. Henry, M., Béguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J. F., Aupinel, P., . . . & Decourtye, A. (2012). Response to comment on “a common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees.” Science, 1224930(1453), 337. Cresswell, J. E., & Thompson, H. M. (2012). Comment on “a common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees.” Science, 337(6101), 2. doi:10.1126/science.1224618
42. Undergraduate Technocrats–•–313
Procedure 1. Read the following: a. three articles published in Science (listed as The Spark: Scientists as Rational Deliberators) b. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? (pp. 1–13). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2. Provide this background for students: How can we tell if a decision-making process is rational? As we learned from the reading, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson (2004) offer six criteria by which to evaluate the quality of deliberation: a. b. c. d. e. f.
Are all parties are willing to give “good” reasons for holding their views? Is the decision process accessible to all citizens? Does the discussion take place in public? Is the exchange of reasons publicly comprehensible? Do the participants appear to agree to be bound by the outcome of deliberation, at least for a while? Is the process dynamic? Will the decision will be revisited, critiqued, and modified if necessary in the future?
Note: these criteria could be formatted as a handout or a slide 3. Discuss Gutmann’s criteria with the students to ensure they understand how and why these criteria capture important principles of democracy. 4. Introduce the “What Are Good Reasons” assignment, described in the following paragraph: In this exercise, you’ll use these criteria to evaluate a series of exchanges in the “pesticide conversation” that involve scientists, policymakers, and pesticide manufacturers. This “comparison and contrast” exercise will allow you to evaluate the quality of deliberation normally displayed by these “technocrats” in their discourse and decide whether and how they meet, or fail to meet, standards of reasonable deliberation captured in the criteria reflected in the Rating Scheme Table you’ll complete for this assignment. 5. Provide Rating Scheme Table (Table 42.1) and list of readings included in the Links and Readings section. 6. Together in class, work with students as a group to complete the middle column of the table, “Environmental Science Discourse,” with reference to the Henry et al. (2012) “Response to Comment . . .” article. 7. Ask students to select and read one of the “Policy” readings from the following Links and Readings list and one reading from the following Syngenta website list. 8. Ask students to work outside of class to complete the prompts comprising the cells in first and third columns of the Rating Scheme Table.
Links and Readings The Response: Science Into Policy Flores, G. (2013). A political battle over pesticides. The Scientist, 27(4). Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist .com//?articles.view/articleNo/35058/title/A-Political-Battle-Over-Pesticides European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) • January 2103: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/120601.htm • March 2013: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130314a.htm Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2013). An assessment of key evidence about neonicotinoids and bees. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-assessment-of-key-evidence-aboutneonicotinoids-and-bees Sass, J., & Wu, M. (2103). Superficial safeguards: Most Pesticides are approved by a flawed EPA process. National Research Defense Council. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/files/flawed-epa-approvalprocess-IB.pdf
314–•–VII. THE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Instructions to students: From the references list given with this exercise, select one example of each of the three types of discourse heading the columns, below (i.e., one example of environmental policy discourse, one example of environmental science discourse, and one example of pesticide manufacturing company discourse). Type the complete citation of each, in APA style, into the “Complete Citation” row in the table. Then, position your cursor in the cells below and type responses to each of the prompts you see in the “Criterion” column. In the bottom row, express your opinion about whether the type of discourse you explored in each column meets Gutmann and Thompson’s criteria for “reasonable deliberation.” Criterion
Environmental Policy Discourse
Environmental Science Discourse
Pesticide Manufacturing Company Discourse
Complete Citation Do they give good reasons for their claims? (if yes, list one) Are these claims comprehensible to other deliberators? Why or why not? Are their reasons made public? Are important stakeholders excluded? How do you know? Do they seem bound by good reasons others give? How do you know? Do they seem amenable to later modification and revision of decision? How do you know? What outcome do authors desire? When does the deliberation process end and a decision get made? Is this an example of reasonable deliberation? Table 42.1
Rating Scheme Table
Pesticide Manufacturing Discourse—The Syngenta website: • EFSA review of risk to bees from neonicotinoid technology is fundamentally flawed; (2013), http://www.syngenta .com/global/corporate/en/news-center/news-releases/Pages/130215-1.aspx • http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/product-brands/seed-care/pages/seed-care .aspx • http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/research-development/pages/scientificexcellence.aspx • http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/product-brands/seed-care/pages/cruiser.aspx • Syngenta and Bayer CropScience propose a comprehensive action plan to help unlock EU stalemate on bee health. (2013), http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/news-center/news-releases/pages/130328.aspx
PART VIII THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
43 OPPORTUNITY FOR EARLY SERVICELEARNING IN TEACHER EDUCATION REID RICHARD RIGGLE AND NANCY MATHIAS St. Norbert College
S
ervice-learning is a high-impact instructional approach that engages students in the community to fulfill a community need while also providing the opportunity to link theory with practice. This pedagogy, also considered academic service-learning (ASL), is sometimes confused with community service. They are two very different approaches. Community service provides the opportunity to serve others in the community but there is no direct connection to academic content. Academic service-learning is designed to provide deeper understanding of academic content through the experience of service in the community. In higher education, service-learning serves multiple purposes: • It provides opportunities for students to be civically engaged by working in the community. • It provides students experiential opportunities to put into practice what they learned in the college classroom. • It helps build lifelong professional skills that could be put to use after graduation from college. • It meets the needs of the community from the perspectives of the community.
In the case of teacher education, ASL is used by many teacher educators to help preservice teachers form an ethic of service and an understanding of students they will serve as educators. One preservice teacher remarked, I am not the same person I was before this experience. The first thing that is different about me is my awareness of what it will take to be an educator. Students come from so many different [various] kinds of cultures, homes, traditions, etc. They all have slightly different learning styles, strengths, intelligences, and levels of knowledge. A teacher has to make
judgments and plan their lessons accordingly. They must get to know their students so they are better able to help them succeed.
This chapter outlines an academic service-learning project, the Village Project (VP), conducted with first-year preservice teachers. It includes discussion of the context of the project, the course that the project is a part of, the Village Project service-learning model, and the impact of the project.
The Partners The Village Project is an ongoing academic service-learning program that creates opportunities for first-year preservice teachers enrolled in a Psychology for Teaching course to mentor and provide academic support to high-need public school students in an after-school setting. This program developed as a result of partnerships between St. Norbert’s Teacher Education Department and Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning, Green Bay Area Public School District, and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC). St. Norbert College in De Pere, Wisconsin, is a Catholic liberal arts college with an enrollment of 2,200 students, approximately 18% of whom are enrolled in teacher education certification programs. The teacher education program at the college emphasizes “theory into practice,” integrating an experiential component in virtually every course (St. Norbert College, 2013a) The “gateway” to the program is a pair of foundational courses taken in the first year at the college, including Psychology for Teaching. 317
318–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
St. Norbert College’s Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning provides leadership and support to the college’s efforts to engage with the broader community in work that promotes the common good. It serves as a resource to community members interested in service, particularly as it impacts student learning (St. Norbert College, 2013b). Green Bay Area Public School District enrolled over 20,000 students in 2012–2013 in 35 schools (Green Bay Area Public School District, 2013). The district is culturally diverse; in 2012, the ethnic makeup of the student population was 55% White, 23% Hispanic, 8% Black, 7% Asian, 4% American Indian, and 3% two or more ethnic identifiers (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2013a).
The Psychology for Teaching Course This course is designed to develop preservice teacher’s understanding of learning, motivation, and assessment. Knowledge of these areas forms the foundation for much of the rest of the teacher education program at St. Norbert. This is primarily a theory course, which implies the use of traditional lecture strategies to help preservice teachers understand the content. However, preservice teachers are more likely to understand the concepts that form the courses curriculum if they have the opportunity to apply the knowledge in a real-world setting. Because the preservice teachers in this course are generally in their first year at the college, they possess limited knowledge and skills to teach children effectively. Consequently, the options to get them into K–12 classrooms to work with children are controlled; however, discussions of service-learning on campus led to a consideration of service-learning as a potential strategy to provide first-year preservice teachers with the opportunity to work with children while helping to meet a community need.
Exploring Community Needs In 2010, initial discussions between St. Norbert College (faculty and the Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning staff) and the Green Bay School District began, exploring and identifying community needs that were aligned with the learning goals of the Psychology for Teaching course. These discussions led to an invitation to participate in a community-wide summit on out-of-school time (OST) programing. Interactions during the summit helped to identify that OST was an area of need. OST is designed to help address the opportunity gap, the gap in academic proficiency between the children of working families (low-income) and students from more affluent families (Tannenbaum & Brown-Welty, 2006). In 2012, 60.3% of students in Green Bay School District were considered to be “economically disadvantaged.” The academic
performance of these students, as measured by standardized tests, was significantly below that of their peers (see Table 43.1). One of the programs the Green Bay community supports to address the opportunity gap is the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). In Green Bay, these sites are located in elementary and middle schools and administered by the Boys & Girls Club and YMCA. The program provides academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools. The program helps students meet state and local student standards in core academic subjects, such as reading and math; offers students a broad array of enrichment activities that can complement their regular academic programs; and offers literacy and other educational services to the families of participating children. (U.S. Department of Education, 2013)
The poverty level in the schools that serve as the basis for the Green Bay School District’s 21st CCLC sites is more profound than the district’s overall poverty rate, ranging from 76% to 97% (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2013b). Stan Kocos, extended learning supervisor for the Green Bay Area Public School District, indicated that the Green Bay 21st CCLC sites provide “extended learning opportunities primarily to children and youth ‘in poverty,’ who demonstrate significant gaps in reading and math achievement” (personal communication, June 6, 2013). Like many programs of this type, Green Bay’s 21st CCLC sites are thinly staffed for the number of students they serve, limiting the amount of one-on-one support the staff can provide. A promising practice from out-of-school time programs involves integrating college students in these programs to help lower the staff-to-student ratio and provide youth with high-quality academic support that may also help increase youth aspirations to attend college (Tannenbaum & Brown-Welty, 2006). Discussion among Sturzl Center staff, faculty, and community members around out-of-school-time efforts in Green Bay resulted in the decision to place preservice teachers in the Green Bay School District’s 21st CCLC sites to provide extra support to staff, particularly in the area of one-on-one homework help and tutoring. It was hoped that by providing extra help, the Village Project participants would buttress the program staff’s efforts, increasing the probability of academic success.
Academic Goals The goals of the service-learning project for preservice teachers enrolled in the Psychology for Teaching include developing an ethic of service, making direct connections between specific concepts discussed in the class and their experience working with children, and building a deeper
43. Opportunity for Early Service-Learning in Teacher Education–•–319
N
Minimally Proficient
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Economically Disadvantaged
849
0.40%
62.20%
9.70%
2.20%
Not Economically Disadvantaged
513
0.20%
28.10%
32.60%
8.00%
Economically Disadvantaged
838
0.80%
57.20%
10.70%
2.00%
Not Economically Disadvantaged
553
0%
23.10%
31.50%
8.10%
Economically Disadvantaged
759
0%
51.80%
13.30%
1.40%
Not Economically Disadvantaged
542
0%
22.00%
36.70%
10.00%
N
Minimally Proficient
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Economically Disadvantaged
849
32.60%
43.30%
22.30%
1.60%
Not Economically Disadvantaged
513
11.30%
36.60%
43.10%
8.80%
Economically Disadvantaged
838
28.90%
46.50%
23.00%
1.60%
Not Economically Disadvantaged
553
8.10%
34.00%
48.30%
9.60%
Economically Disadvantaged
759
24.10%
49.30%
23.80%
2.80%
Not Economically Disadvantaged
542
6.60%
31.00%
47.20%
15.10%
Reading Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Math Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Table 43.1
Achievement as Measured by Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE) and Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (WAA) Combined by Economic Status and School Types Green Bay Area Public School District, November 2012 All School Types Combined
SOURCE: Authors, using 2012 data from the Green Bay Area Public School District.
understanding of the unique experiences of students who live in poverty and the impact the experiences have on students’ motivation and learning. Developing an Ethic of Service A key aspect of citizenship is the civic skill of “active citizenship practices” (Brammer et al., 2013, p. 4), including working toward addressing social inequalities. An
increasing number of teacher education programs see preparing teachers to address social justice as a key element of their efforts (Grant & Agosto, 2008). One way to empower preservice teachers to think in this way is to help them see the inequities inherent in our society and institutional structures, which can be accomplished through participation in service-learning (Boyle-Baise & McIntyre, 2005). Service-learning can develop a civic disposition (Brammer et al., 2013) and a deeper understanding for the
320–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
need for change (Grant & Agosto, 2008). However, a growing body of research indicates that in order to have a positive impact, preservice teachers need help framing their own service and analyzing their experiences in ways that promote a social justice orientation rather than simply reinforcing existing ways of thinking (Cochran-Smith, Shakman, Jong, Terrell, Barnatt, & McQuillan, 2009). Through reflective analysis and discussion of the experience, preservice teachers can come to realize their capacity to serve as change agents because they see the positive impact they have on individual students. The outcomes of service-learning for preservice teachers can include the following: Making direct connections between specific concepts discussed in the class and their experience working with children. Service-learning holds the potential to enhance the learning of preservice teachers (Furco, 1996). The impact on preservice teachers in this context comes from the opportunity to engage in meaningful interactions in the support of children’s learning. Teaching theory in the absence of practice restricts preservice teachers’ comprehension of core concepts (Hammerness et al., 2005). Consequently, creating opportunities to observe and participate in supporting student-learning holds the potential to elevate the preservice teachers’ understanding of the central principles in theories by using these ideas to explain student behavior. Building a deeper understanding of the unique experiences of students who live in poverty and the impact the experiences have on students’ motivation and learning. The opportunity to work with students from economically, racially, and linguistically diverse backgrounds has the potential to help preservice teachers expand their understanding of the nature and needs of young learners. Some preservice teachers come to college with preconceptions about learning that must be altered if they are to successfully enter the profession (Hammerness et al., 2005). These beliefs are generally developed out of lived experiences and thus are frequently resistant to change (Bandura, 1997). Consequently, engaging preservice teachers’ preconceptions early in a preparation program is critical to their success as educators. There is some evidence that meaningful service experiences help preservice teachers break down their preconceptions and shift their perspective of students’ capacity to learn (Levesque-Bristol, Knapp, & Fisher, 2010).
The Village Project Model Each of the preservice teachers enrolled in the Psychology for Teaching course who chooses to participate in the Village Project contribute 30 hours of service over a sixweek period in highly structured after-school programs
tutoring and providing general support to K–8 students at one of Green Bay’s 21st CCLC sites.
Key Elements of the VP Model The pitch. Preservice teachers in the class are pitched the idea of participating in the service-learning dimension of the course in the first week of class. This is not a value neutral presentation. The faculty member makes it clear that he or she is advocating for participation in the project. Choice. The ability to choose to participate is critical because it increases the likelihood of commitment to the substantial amount of time needed outside of class as well as the probability of meaningful engagement in the project. Those who chose not to participate in the project were offered an alternative inquiry assignment that was contracted with the instructor. Memorandum of agreement (MOA). To help clarify the roles and responsibilities of all those involved in the project, a memorandum of agreement is signed by preservice teachers participating the project, the Sturzl Center Village Project coordinator, and the faculty member. The document makes clear expectations for preservice teachers as they enter into an unfamiliar set of circumstances. Signing the document indicates a level of commitment by all involved and helps to serve as a guide if issues arise. Training. Training is particularly important for this group of preservice teachers, because they are early in their program and have limited knowledge and skills related to teaching. Training often includes multicultural awareness, understanding the impact of poverty, basic behavior management strategies, professionalism, and tutoring and mentoring skills. Teams. Once committed to the project, preservice teachers are assigned to teams. Traveling to the site as a team provides a comfort level for participants and helps with travel logistics. Time. Each team participates at one of the 21st CCLC elementary school sites for 2.5 hours, twice a week, for six weeks or 30 hours of service. Reflection and connection. Reflection is central to service-learning because it provides the opportunity for the participant to think critically about the experience. Dialogue expands on reflections by giving preservice teachers a chance to share their experiences, and it offers the professor and service-learning staff the chance to respond to participants’ ideas, clarifying and focusing insights. Engaging in a range of reflection and discussion supports the development of preservice teachers’ thinking across the experience and gives them a chance to apply
43. Opportunity for Early Service-Learning in Teacher Education–•–321
their new understandings. The project participants keep a journal in which they describe events and reflect on the connections between what they observe and concepts from the course. At the end of the semester, they produce a final project that describes (a) the context of the learning experience; (b) five different “learning events” experienced at the site; (c) how this academic service-learning project facilitated the participant’s development as a preservice teacher; (d) how service-learning helped the participant to “live” St. Norbert College’s mission, most specifically the concept of communio; and (e) explains the knowledge acquired using key concepts from the course. The project helps preservice teachers make direct connections between concepts in the curriculum of the course and their experiences during the project (Spencer, Cox-Petersen, & Crawford, 2005).
Partner Roles and Expectations One key strategy to a successful project is defining the roles of those participating in the project, as traditional roles tend to expand and overlap in service-learning (Conville & Kinnell, 2010). The structure of the participants’ roles in the Village Project is outlined in the Figure 43.1. These roles have helped ensure that all partners have a positive and successful experience.
Faculty Academic service-learning requires an individual faculty member who embraces the pedagogy (Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002). By passionately pitching the Village Project to students, faculty members advocate the value of service and ability of first-year preservice teachers to contribute to the community. By taking this position, the faculty member sends a message about the value of service-learning and commitment to the concept. Furthermore, the Village Project faculty members’ responsibilities include setting the course learning goals and ensuring that these goals match with the implementation of the service-learning project. In addition, the faculty member articulates the relationship between preservice teachers’ experiences in the servicelearning project and the curriculum of the course and assesses student learning. Perhaps the most important quality needed by a faculty member is a desire to collaborate and share the teaching-learning process with campus and community partners. The faculty member must recognize certain tradeoffs have to be made for the project to be successful, including the release of some control, significant time commitments, and the flexibility to adjust to unforeseen challenges (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). Service-learning emphasizes community partnership and engagement. It requires that the professor share some
Community Partners
K–12 Students
College Service-Learning Leadership
Faculty First-Year Preservice Teachers
College Service-Learning Logistical Support
Figure 43.1 The Structure of the Village Project
322–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
control with others: service-learning center staff, community partners, and the participants (Conville & Kinnell, 2010). In our experience, this process is most effective if the professor sees him or herself as a partner rather than a director. By taking a step back and allowing others to collaborate on the design, implementation, and assessment of a service-project, the professor opens the door to their expertise, enhancing the quality of the learning opportunity for preservice teachers. Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning Research shows the need for the service-learning leader on campus to establish a vision for the inclusion of the pedagogy, as well as advocating for, facilitating, and supporting faculty efforts to integrate service-learning into courses (Young et al., 2007). The center is a critical piece in the web of service-learning at St. Norbert. The center staff support faculty, students, and the community in providing institutional leadership and logistical support. The Struzl Center staff provide the co-curricula support for the Village Project based on faculty and course needs. This includes (a) setting up contacts and maintaining communication with community partners, (b) managing the logistics of training and orientation for participants, (c) building participant teams and placing them at sites (including identifying drivers for each group), (d) seeking resources to support travel costs incurred by participants, and (e) facilitating group reflective discussions with participants. Of critical importance to the Village Project was identifying a point person for all logistical support. During the initial creation of the VP, the Sturzl Center staff provided the services of an AmeriCorps VISTA Service Coordinator in this role. Each VISTA staff member served for one year at the college. The VISTA program is designed for members to “focus their efforts to build the organizational, administrative, and financial capacity of organizations that fight illiteracy, improve health services, foster economic development, and otherwise assist low-income communities” (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2014). For the Village Project, the VISTA staff person helped in setting up schedules, arranging meetings, managing risk, addressing problems at the sites, providing funding support, and ensuring effective communication and accountability among partners. First-Year Preservice Teachers The participation of the preservice teachers in the project is an essential element for success. Preservice teachers’ role in the Village Project is to serve as extra support to the after-school staff. In addition, participants facilitate exploration opportunities: playing academic games with students, reading with them, and discussing ideas such as the goal of attending college.
Advisory Group Because service-learning opportunities often involve college and community partners, it is important that everyone participates in project discussions. Developing an advisory group of campus and community partners who meet several times a year is helpful in developing a shared vision and addressing specific programing, organizational, and logistical issues. The Village Project Advisory Group meets formally once a year to debrief on how the project worked that year and consider modifications to improve the project in the following year. For example, in the spring of 2011 the group debated the issue of how much time the preservice teachers should serve in the field. In particular, the question was “How much time is sufficient to have a positive impact on the elementary students served by the program?” Initially, the threshold was set at 20 hours, but discussion with community partners on the advisory group made it clear that a more significant time commitment would allow for greater consistency in students’ experiences and afford them the opportunity to build relationships with their mentors. At that point, the group decided that 30 hours was a reasonable threshold.
Conclusion The Village Project model has proven an effective strategy for engaging the preconceptions of a significant number of first-year preservice teachers around social issues that impact student learning, the capacity of all students to learn, and the value of building strong interpersonal relationships with students while supporting the Green Bay community’s efforts to close the opportunity gap. In three academic years, just over 200 preservice teachers participated in the Village Project at St. Norbert College, which is over half of all those enrolled in the college’s first-year teacher education courses during that time. After a year of pilot efforts (2010–2011), the following two years of the project (2011–2013) employed the model described in this chapter. Eighty-seven preservice teachers have participated in the second and third years of the program providing 2,610 hours of community engagement. Using a content analysis procedure, data indicate that several factors seem most salient to participants (see Figure 43.2). The two most dominant responses, identified by over half the participants, are developing a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the impact that social factors (e.g., poverty, race, culture) have on student motivation and learning how educators can adapt instruction to meet students’ individual needs. More than 24% of all participants nominated both of these factors, demonstrating the impact the project had on students’ understanding of these critical concepts. This outcome is important because simply recognizing a social
43. Opportunity for Early Service-Learning in Teacher Education–•–323
Adapting teaching strategies/differentiation
51.00%
Understanding social issues—poverty/diversity
51.00%
Building trusting relationships
45.00%
Leadership/classroom management
45.00%
Confidence as educator
40.00%
Patience
31.00%
Understanding of equity issues
8.00%
Growth/maturity as educator
6%
Empathy
2011–2013 (N=87)
5% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 43.2 Village Project Preservice Teacher Outcome Data: Self-Nominated Learning Outcomes
issue does not necessarily enhance the preservice teachers’ capacity to teach effectively (Knight-McKenna, Darby, Spingler, & Shafer, 2011). The fact that these variables seemed most important to preservice teachers offers hope that the experience will result in meaningful dispositions that will orient the preservice teacher to differentiate instruction. Perhaps equally as valuable is the insight that building strong, trusting interpersonal relationships with students has a positive impact on student motivation and achievement, a concept nominated by 45% of the participants. This idea has long been central to effective teaching; however, the fact that these preservice teachers “discovered” the concept elevates its impact.
The impact of the VP on K–12 student participants is challenging to discern, because the VP was embedded within a larger after-school effort. Consequently, it is difficult to tease out the influence of preservice teachers from other factors. It is important to note that (1) Green Bay’s 21st CCLC programs have produced gains in school-day attendance and student achievement in math and reading (Green Bay School District, 2012), and (2) the Village Project helps preservice teachers understand important principles of learning and motivation by making direct connections between the concepts and their experience working with students during the service-learning experience.
References and Further Readings
Conville, R., & Kinnell, A. (2010). Relational dimensions of service-learning: Common ground for faculty, students, and community partners. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 3(1), 27–39. Corporation for National and Community Service. (2014). AmeriCorps VISTA. Retrieved from http://www.national service.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vista Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. Expanding Boundaries: Serving and Learning, 1, 1–6. Grant, C., & Agosto, V. (2008). Teacher capacity and social justice in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, K. E. Demers, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions and changing contexts (pp. 175–200). New York, NY: Routledge. Green Bay Area Public School District. (2013). Quick facts 2012. Retrieved from http://www.greenbay.k12.wi.us/ District-Board/Documents/Quick_facts%20% 202012-13.pdf Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. M.
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. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Worth. Boyle-Baise, M., & McIntyre, D. J. (2005). What kind of experience? Preparing teachers in PDS or community settings. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, K. E. Demers, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions and changing contexts (pp. 307–330). New York, NY: Routledge. Brammer, L., Dumlao, R., Falk, A., Hollander, E., Knutson, E., Poehnert, J., & Politano, A. (2013). Core competencies in civic engagement. Journal of Service Learning in Higher Education, 2. Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Education, 115(3), 347–377.
324–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Knight-McKenna, M., Darby, A., Spingler, M., & Shafer, W. (2011). Educative outcomes for academic service-learning: Explicit illustrations of reflection. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 208–214. Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T., & Fisher, B. (2010). The effectiveness of service-learning: It’s not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(3), 208–224. Spencer, B., Cox-Petersen, A., & Crawford, T. (2005). Assessing the impact of service-learning on preservice teachers in an after-school program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 119–135. St. Norbert College. (2013a). Education. Retrieved from http:// www.snc.edu/education St. Norbert College. (2013b). Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.snc.edu/sturzlcenter
Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. A. (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Tannenbaum, S. C., & Brown-Welty, S. (2006). Tandem pedagogy: Embedding service-learning into an after-school program. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(2), 111–125. U.S. Department of Education. (2013). 21st century community learning centers. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/ programs/21stcclc/index.html Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2013a). Public school enrollment data [Data file]. Retrieved from http:// lbstat.dpi.wi.gov/lbstat_pubdata3 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2013b). Wisconsin’s information network for successful schools [Data file]. Retrieved from http://winss.dpi.wi.gov Young, C. A., Shinnar, R. S., Ackerman, R. L., Carruthers, C. P., & Young, D. A. (2007). Implementing and sustaining service-learning at the institutional level. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 344–365.
44 LESSONS FROM PRESERVICE TEACHERS Under the Surface of Service-Learning in Teacher Education
P
JONATHAN C. DOOLEY
TERRY J. BURANT
Elon University
University of Wyoming
reparing a largely racially homogenous population of preservice teachers (undergraduate students preparing for a career in education) to teach the growing number of diverse students is one of many challenges facing teacher education in the United States. Early field experiences, including service-learning, are increasingly recommended to address this concern. Despite the many positive outcomes of service-learning, in some cases these experiences provide opportunities for preservice teachers to cement existing stereotypical beliefs or develop new prejudices. Susan Jones, Jen Gilbride-Brown, and Anna Gasiorski (2005) term this possibility the underside of service-learning. Miseducative experiences are likely if preservice teachers are placed in isolated classrooms or field settings, receive limited guidance in making sense of their experiences, or do not participate in meaning-making activities that account for their unique social locations and their psychosocial, cognitive, and identity development. It is important then for teacher educators to understand what happens during field experiences, to attend to, as Kenneth M. Zeichner (1987) describes, “the ecology of early field experiences.” This chapter adds to that field knowledge by reporting results of qualitative research on the experiences and understandings of undergraduate preservice teachers, mostly first-year students, as they engaged in service-learning associated with their first teacher education course. We begin by providing theoretical perspectives relevant to the research. Then we describe the study,
its context, and the ways in which preservice teachers made sense of their service experiences. We conclude with implications for service-learning pedagogy, particularly in teacher education programs, although not limited to this discipline.
Theoretical Perspectives The journey toward a commitment to teaching for equity and justice is developmental; consequently, academic experiences that propose to transform perceptions and attitudes must necessarily address multiple aspects of human development and identity formation. Theories of college student development, including those that address cognitive complexity, identity development, and interpersonal relationships can help frame the developmental statuses and tasks that are crucial to students’ abilities to internalize the concepts and experiences encountered in service-learning courses. Marsha Baxter Magolda (2001) suggests that instructors should value learners’ previous experiences while inviting them to expand that knowledge through mutual construction of new ideas with teachers and peers. Students should be encouraged to move beyond knowledge acquisition and actively construct knowledge through experience and reflection on that experience. Baxter Magolda also believes that instructors must operate under the assumption that self is central to knowledge and 325
326–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
encourage students to establish and use their own belief systems by crafting learning environments as places of respect, trust, and shared authority. Service-learning also may encourage racial identity development and foster (or disrupt or halt) commitments to social justice. Rita Hardiman and Bailey Jackson (1992) and Janet Helms (1995) provide models for understanding the likely statuses of racial identity development that students may experience in a service-learning course who are recognizing both their own racial identity and privilege—perhaps for the first time—and determining how to integrate their own sense of who they are and who they are becoming into their work as emerging teachers. Similarly, Diane Goodman (2001) presents a model for the development of social justice among students noting that growth experiences such as those provided by service-learning can be uncomfortable for students, particularly those from privileged backgrounds, and encourages the creation of a supportive environment where there is trust and rapport. Once this environment is established, Goodman believes that students must be given opportunities to become aware of unquestioned beliefs and attitudes and develop skills in critical thinking, reflection, and analysis. These developmental models highlight the fact that preservice teachers do not become teachers for social justice merely through benign acquisition of academic information; instead, they will likely engage with the material in emotionally and morally challenging ways. By taking into account theories of development and identity formation, teacher educators may be better equipped to steer preservice teachers through the thornier moments in their service-learning experiences in teacher education.
About the Study To enter the service-learning experience of students ecologically, the research for this study was conducted by the first author while doing his doctoral work teacher education course (taught by the second author). This close-up “insider,” yet still “outsider” perspective is a significant factor in this study, since much of the research on servicelearning in higher education consists of large-scale, quantitative studies of the overall impact of service-learning on college students across majors (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999) or, in the specific case of teacher education, consists of work conducted by teacher educators in the context of their own courses or programs (Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000; Hyland & Noffke, 2005). Although practitioner research by teacher educators in their own settings of practice provides important insights, the potential for coercion and inaccurate data collection exists. The current study was designed to address this concern, while also presenting a more comprehensive view of students’ experiences in a particular course than is
typically available or practically possible for a faculty member teaching a course to observe. The study was also mindful of the small number of previous studies that raised concern about negative unintended consequences of service-learning related to the reification of stereotypes and prejudice (Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000; Gomez, 1996; Haberman & Post, 1992; Murtadha-Watts, 1998; O’Grady, 2000). Although there were a number of questions explored through the study, this chapter reports how preservice teachers made meaning of their service-learning experiences and the implications of this information for effective service-learning pedagogy. These questions were examined in the context of service-learning experiences assigned as part of an introductory level course on schooling in a diverse society at an urban Jesuit university. The course included readings, films, class activities, and discussion centered on three major themes: examining schooling historically and politically, schooling in a diverse society, and teaching in a diverse society. In addition to the option of service-learning, the course was designated to fulfill the diverse-cultures requirement of the Core of Common Studies at the institution, and incorporated a number of reflective practices, including writing, dialogue with peers, and reading and discussing stories of educators for social justice. Research methodology followed a qualitative design using techniques recommended by Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin (1990) and included observation in the classroom and at the service-learning sites, participant interviews, and document analysis. Consistent with the desire to understand the relationship between social justice, service-learning, and privilege, the students selected for interviews and site observations were from more socioeconomically privileged and culturally insular backgrounds than their classmates (according to self-reports on a screening questionnaire). Data were analyzed in a recursive process of identifying and comparing themes and developing case study profiles of four participants— Michael, Brooke, Dan, and Jenny*—and the ways they made sense of their service-learning experiences (Dooley, 2007). (*Pseudonyms are used for the students and their friends.) Across these profiles, we identified several factors that played a role in the meaning participants made of their service-learning experiences and associated outcomes.
Findings The analysis of data revealed that students (a) primarily turned to prior experiences, values, and personal attributes and characteristics rather than course content, as their foundations for sensemaking; (b) consistently relied on a host of other people in their lives to actively reflect on their experiences; and (c) centered their attention and
44. Lessons From Preservice Teachers–•–327
summarized the meaning of their experience via unexpected and often dramatic incidents that occurred, interestingly, outside of their actual sites or apart from the duties they performed in service.
Lenses of Prior Experiences, Existing Values, and Characteristics It is not surprising that some of the most important influences on the outcomes of service-learning for the four preservice teachers had as much to do with who they were upon arriving on campus and walking into class as they did with their experiences throughout the semester-long course. Opinions and images of what service-learning might be like were potent lenses for them; among the most influential were the attitudes and influence of family members, their own awareness and understandings of their racial identities and personalities, previous experiences with community service, and previous exposure to diverse environments. These factors combined to create a set of preexisting expectations for service-learning. Despite reflecting on their experiences formally and integrating knowledge, skills, or attitudes learned in the course, students’ expectations prior to visiting their service-learning sites shaped the outcomes of their experiences. Further, the perceptions they held regarding race and justice at the beginning of the semester were largely reinforced. Michael, for example, worked in an afterschool program, offering homework assistance and playing games or hanging out primarily with middle school students. Before he visited his site for the first time, he explained: I expect to do a great deal of things from homework to playing whatever sport they want . . . to talking with them, being there for the kids, being available for them . . . I expect to not necessarily be a big brother, but I’d like to be an adult figure in their life, someone they can turn to if they need help.
In many ways, Michael’s expectations for his site became the basis for his observations and reflection on his experience. Most often, when speaking or writing about service-learning, he recounted behavioral challenges and his impatience in working with some of the children. Although Michael’s encounters and conclusions were unique, his experience reflected that of the other participants, who found in their service-learning site what they expected to find from the beginning, in spite of the many opportunities to reflect on their experience, to consider what was new, different, or unexpected, and to develop new skills and attitudes. In cases where new experiences caused contradiction with existing perceptions, those new experiences were often filtered through and measured against the original perceptions, rather than material from the course or the instructor. Additionally, after the course was completed, each of the students also expressed attitudes about race that were consistent with those at the outset. A significant exception to these phenomena was Jenny, who came to the course with limited exposure to racial and socioeconomic differences and struggled at the outset to articulate her preconceived notions for what she would experience. Her understanding of this lack of exposure and that there was more for her to learn seemed to have aided her in being open to the experiences in service-learning and making the most of what might have been challenging experiences for others.
Reflection With Others Outside of the Course All of the participants in the study consistently engaged in regular “informal” reflection; each spent considerable time talking with family and friends about service-learning. Of all the factors influencing the meaning students made from service-learning, relationship with family was the one factor that every student identified. According to Jenny, her family
He also thought that the kids at the site would be “probably rowdy, probably high on sugar . . . probably restless after a long day at school.” Imagining the home lives of his students, he said, “Lord only knows what their home life is like, so, you know . . . they’re very unpredictable kids.” In that same interview, Michael predicted (accurately, as it would turn out) what would challenge him most in the service-learning experience:
In Brooke’s case, on a day-to-day basis, she started communicating with her parents about her experiences:
Probably . . . my patience. Teaching requires patience. I’m a rather impatient person. So probably the number one area that’s going to be challenging is my patience with the kids getting it. Especially within the first couple weeks. Getting to know them, getting to know their limits. Because I like to push kids. I like to get everything I can out of them and sometimes I push too far and they break down and they haul off and they show me out, but it’s a risk I’m willing to take, because otherwise you’re not going to make progress.
I talk to them every day. . . . I usually call my dad and they are all just really happy I’m doing it because I tell them . . . funny stories about the kids or something. And my mom’s really into this kind of thing because . . . she’s on all these boards and she works at [a national social service agency] sometimes, which is kind of the same thing because it’s like helping kids in poverty or whatever. And, she always gets real emotional, she’s like, “Oh, I’m just so happy that you’re doing this.” And they’re just really supportive.
encouraged me to go out and do things in the community and help and I just think it’s how I was raised, something that I should do. So, I think it’s just something that encouraged me that when I take this class I should obviously do the servicelearning option with it.
328–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Brooke found support from her parents as she actively resisted the self-described stereotypes of her wealthy upbringing and education exclusively in private Catholic schools. Conversations with friends also served as important tools for reflection. For example, in a reflection paper halfway through the semester, Brooke wrote, When I explain to my friends what it is that I’m doing and where it is located, they become intrigued. Like me, they haven’t been exposed to that kind of a neighborhood, and they often ask me questions about it. My friend Bridget stresses how she wishes she was in a program like the one I’m in, but she said she’d be scared to go to that part of town. We often talk about teaching and the positive and negative sides to it.
Similarly, Jenny reported supportive attitudes from her friends about service-learning. In a paper submitted midway through the semester, Jenny described two different reactions of friends who expressed hesitation to put themselves in Jenny’s shoes. One was impressed with Jenny’s willingness to enter into a situation with students from various cultural backgrounds. The other friend empathized with Jenny’s initial nervousness going into an unfamiliar urban environment to work with individuals with very different backgrounds. Dan was most influenced by his regular conversations with a close friend from high school. During the first interview at the beginning of the semester, Dan described being back in his hometown with “Boomer” and walking in a poor neighborhood and “noticing and talking about the satellite TV dishes on all the houses.” On this walk, Boomer pointed out that “stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason,” and this phrase became symbolic for Dan; he repeated it frequently throughout the semester during both small and large group class discussions about race and schooling. In describing Boomer, Dan explained: He wasn’t racist, he was—I don’t even know if there’s a word for it. There was like a certain type of person that he did not like and it just so happened that most people that were that type of person happened to be Black. You know, there were White people that were like that, too, but not quite as many as Black people. And so I guess you couldn’t really call him racist because he wasn’t against the race, he was against the type of person. And that I can understand because he was against the type of person that mooches off the government and does—you know, buys bling bling when their children are starving.
In an interview a month after the end of the semester, Dan pointed out that Boomer had the most influence on him as he learned about race and schooling during the semester because “we always talked about it.” He explained that Boomer “showed me that stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason, but yet there are some exceptions, like the wealthy Black man in his dad’s law firm.”
Unexpected Pivotal Experiences Dan, Brooke, and Michael reported experiences peripheral to their service-learning as powerful sources of meaning making. Dan often discussed his 20-minute bus rides back to campus after his weekly service at an elementary school, during which the bus he rode would quickly fill with African American teenagers. While he viewed many of the students at his service-learning site as well-behaved, easy to relate to, and “just like him and his friends when they were that age,” the students on the bus represented one aspect of the reality he expected to encounter through service-learning. In a paper submitted halfway through the semester, Dan stated: While I was on the bus back to campus, we picked up many Black kids that just got out of school. These kids were high school age and obviously economically challenged. Throughout the bus ride, these kids began pissing me off. They were just so loud and obnoxious that I could not stand it. Everything was, “N___ this” and “B___ that.” It was horrible. It just got worse and worse as more and more kids got on. Finally, I reached campus and was relieved from the immature behavior of those kids . . . My initial reaction to my servicelearning was, “Great, I get to teach.” However, I had a worse reaction to the bus ride home. I did not want to be by those kids. They were just so loud and so shameless that I wanted no part of it. Then after I had this thought, I wondered if I was being racist. After thinking about it for a little bit I realized that I did not hate them for their color, but rather I just did not like the way they behaved. But maybe, they did not like me. Maybe it was I impeding on their fun. I do not know, is it possible, probably. Maybe they acted differently because a White boy was there. Is this likely, no. But it is possible.
In his “Beholding Beauty/Engaging Grit” reflection journal entries (an assignment that asked students to document where they are experiencing beauty or gritty reality in themselves, the people around them, or their servicelearning experiences), Dan expressed that he found beauty in the innocence of the children in Mrs. Smith’s class and he enjoyed seeing them learn the material that he was reinforcing through tutoring. But, via his bus rides home, he came to understand “why a person would be racist if they were only exposed to Black people ‘acting a stereotype’ [as Boomer would say] like the students on the bus.” The incident that stood out for Brooke dealt with violence in the neighborhood surrounding the school where she participated in service-learning. Brooke had expected to find violence and a “run down” neighborhood around the charter school site—an expectation she communicated before she visited the site for her first day of servicelearning. In many ways, Brooke discovered what she expected to and recounted the following incident in her first reflection paper: Another day I had an eye opening experience. I was working with a boy named Joseph that I work with each week. All of a sudden there were kids from outside kicking and pounding on
44. Lessons From Preservice Teachers–•–329 the windows and screaming at everyone inside. The teacher walked over and closed all the blinds but the kids remained to pound against the windows. I asked the teacher who that was and she said it was just some of the “neighborhood kids.” They were no older than 5th grade. I asked if they come around a lot and then she told me that they come on occasion and once they peed on the window. When the kids started pounding on the windows Joseph said, “Oh no, the bad kids are back.” He didn’t seem frightened, actually he was surprisingly calm. I asked him about the kids and he said that the last time they came to the school they put a knife up to the window. I was shocked! That was the first time I had heard about violence in the neighborhood. The fact that Joseph seemed sort of nonchalant about the knife thing made me wonder what kind of other stuff he has been exposed to, and if that kind of violence doesn’t even faze him anymore?
Brooke repeated this story frequently throughout the semester, both in interviews and in small and large group discussions with her classmates. For her, it seemed to be a defining story about the school as an environment of safety in a violent neighborhood. She reflected later on this particular incident and the feelings it surfaced, as she thought about the students with whom she had developed relationships: It’s sad to be in that neighborhood and think that all my nice little cute kids—I don’t know if they know that things are better other places or whatever, I’m just kind of sad. But then a lot of the kids are like, “Oh, I’m going to go to this high school,” or “I’m going to go to this college,” and at least they want to try and—I don’t know if they’re trying to get out of where they live, but they’re trying to do good things with their lives other than just stay in that neighborhood for their whole life, I guess. So I just kind of feel—I’m happy that they’re trying, I just feel bad that they live in that kind of neighborhood now.
Although Brooke’s experiences could have resulted in perpetuating stereotypes of urban environments and the children who live in them, she recounted this story to her parents and they helped her put the incident into a larger context. For Michael, the experience that served as a defining source of meaning making for service-learning came in the form of a fight that he nearly became involved in at his site. During an interview, Michael described the near-fight: I was leaving the program and I was signing out and this kid, he told me to “Get the f___ out of there,” and the kid’s a year younger than I am, maybe two, and like, he’s also like dropping f-bombs in front of girls that are 13 years old, and I’m like, “Hey man, watch your language, there’s little kids around here.” He told me “Who the hell do I think I am?” and I was like, “Do you think you’re showing off by using that kind of language? I can swear with the best of them but I’m not going to do that right now . . .” So he’s like, “Who the hell do you . . .” So I said to him, “Come on, step outside.” And then he’s thinking I’m going to fight him so like he’s getting all ready—getting all hyped up to fight and I walked up to
him and I said, “This is why everyone thinks you’re a n___” and then I walked away and the kid was just perplexed. He just didn’t know what hit him, and to be honest, I was really surprised that he didn’t go grab a couple of his buddies and come and say, “The White boy called me a n____.” I was really surprised. To be honest I kind of walked a little more briskly that night.
In his reflection journal, Michael described this incident, and other instances of negative behavior of the students, as part of the “gritty” side of his service-learning placement. But he expressed that it did not necessarily cause him to think negatively about his overall experience or the particular students he worked with in the program. Michael seemed to isolate his negative perceptions for students who “acted their stereotype” (interestingly, just like Dan’s friend Boomer would say) when he was at the site. Those students, like the student with whom he nearly started a fight and to whom he directed a pointed racial epithet, helped Michael defend some of his preexisting opinions about race. Each of these defining stories from Dan, Brooke, and Michael serve as important reminders that students will have powerful experiences during service-learning that may not be aligned with the intent of the instructor or the course syllabus. In addition, the students also processed their experiences in unintended ways. For example, in using the beauty/grit journal format, for the most part, each of the students described beauty as a distinctive, stand-alone construct or facet of their experiences, something found in the site itself—the facility, the staff, and the fact that the program even existed. In a few cases, particularly with Brooke, Dan, and Jenny, they also pointed out beauty in the innocence of children and their relationships with them. Instances of gritty reality however, generally involved the neighborhood surrounding the school, the home lives (real or imagined) of the students at their sites, or deficits in the academic performance, abilities, or behavior of the students. In these journals, students seemed to reinforce the notion that service-learning is an activity where wonderful “good” people at a lovely site help “poor” and innocent children and save them from their environments. Students seldom identified assets within community or the students’ families. Rather than viewing beauty and gritty reality simultaneously as the assignment encouraged, the students, via their journals, seemed to reflect stereotypes of the “White savior” teacher popularized in films such as Dangerous Minds and Freedom Writers and cautioned against in research on urban field experiences in teacher education (Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000). As Robert Lowe (2000) points out in his critique of Dangerous Minds, the community and the adults (in this case, Latino/a and African American) are typically portrayed as part of the problem for the caring White teacher either by subverting the teacher’s plans, not believing in education for their children, or acting like mechanical bureaucrats afraid of change.
330–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Conclusion and Implications Each participant in the study came to the course and to the service-learning experience with previous experiences, perceptions, and attitudes; participants’ sites were unique and the manner in which they engaged in the work of their sites was equally so, as were their networks of people they turned to for sharing their stories. Consequently, the meaning they made of the service-learning experience reflected all of these various elements and was complex and distinctive for each student. Michael found evidence to support his preexisting notions of race, discrimination, responsibility, and accountability, and he practiced his predicted impatience, nearly getting into a fight in the process. Jenny came to the experience without much exposure to individuals of racial and economic backgrounds different from her own, but her family support for engaging in service made her eager to participate. Dan explored both the unfamiliar neighborhood of his site and the neighborhoods of his hometown, developed relationships with a handful of students, carefully observed other youth on his bus rides from his site, and interpreted his experiences largely through his friend Boomer’s eyes. Brooke sought, and seemed to find, acceptance in the diverse environment she worked in and eagerly explored her own identity with regular assistance from her supportive parents as she resisted her own stereotype of a wealthy, Catholic schoolgirl. In varying degrees, all of the students made some progress in meeting personal goals they defined for their own service-learning experience and in the goals articulated in the course syllabus. In a few areas, most notably with Michael and Dan, racial stereotypes were reinforced. This study and the analysis of data presented here have implications for the implementation of service-learning in teacher education. First, the experiences and meaningmaking portrayed in the study remind us that instructors should be conscious throughout the duration of a course that much is happening beneath the surface for students engaged in service-learning. It is useful, then, to explore under that surface before service-learning begins. For example, instructors might ask students to do preflections on their prior service-learning experiences, the things they look forward to, and the aspects of service-learning they are most apprehensive about. Then, instructors could describe in very concrete terms what students might reasonably expect from service-learning itself, the site, and the relationships they might form. This foregrounding should include discussion about unexpected sources of learning, such as transportation to and from the site, experiences in the neighborhood, and connections that students might draw between service-learning and noncourse activities and other relationships and experiences. While teacher education programs typically emphasize reflection, it is useful to remember that service-learning preflections can be just as important as reflection after, particularly for helping surface students’ expectations.
It is also important for instructors to realize that reflection along the way will take place in a variety of unexpected settings and with individuals important in students’ lives. Encouraging these conversations with others outside of the class—even as explicitly as assigning students to talk about their experiences with friends and family (perhaps via newer forms of technology and social networking)—and then reporting on those conversations in writing or in class discussions could help surface interpretations as they arise. Going back to John Dewey’s (1910) distinctions between reflective and routine thinking and action, engaging in reflective thinking ultimately involves a thinker putting experience into language and expressing thoughts to others. Orchestrating opportunities for expression of thoughts outside of a customary class discussion would provide service learners with additional practice. If we want beginning teachers to examine reasons for and possible future consequences of specific practices they engage in and observe in their service-learning sites and then examine how those practices might limit or further students’ learning and life chances, we would also do well to attend to the specific attitudes they deem critical for reflective thought—open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility—and ask students to practice these attitudes with greater frequency. As Kenneth M. Zeichner and Daniel P. Liston (1996) point out, reflection in teacher education can be reduced to a popular slogan devoid of meaning if teacher educators assume that beginning teachers can effectively frame problems, analyze assumptions, and attend to institutional contexts without guidance and practice. Given that students in this study very rarely made specific connections between their experiences and the course content, regularly planning for and utilizing prompts in class that encourage integration of knowledge and experience are necessary. Using quotes from course reading materials, readings in their entirety, or lecture material, and then asking students to apply their experience to the content or vice versa is a relatively simple strategy for encouraging integration. In this course for example, the conditions Gordon W. Allport (1979) suggested for facilitating meaningful interracial contact, such as equal status relationships and common goals, were discussed. Asking students to comment explicitly on the absence or presence of these conditions in their settings could have guided students toward more meaningful learning. It would also be instructive to ask students about contradictions between experiences and course content in order to examine more carefully the sources of contradictions, their validity, and possible ways to reframe both content and experiences in order to meet curricular goals. When integrating service-learning in a course, faculty also need to be aware of and understand student development theories, to be cognizant of students’ psychosocial and cognitive development and shifting racial identities (Baxter Magolda, 2001; Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010; Goodman, 2011; Hardiman & Jackson, 1992;
44. Lessons From Preservice Teachers–•–331
Helms, 1995), and to understand how these may influence the ability of students to make constructive meaning of their service-learning experiences. As Michael, Brooke, Jenny, and Dan’s stories remind us, attitudes developed through 18 years of life are not easily altered in a single semester. In these four cases, most of the students’ understandings about race and inequities remained firmly rooted in individual forms of oppression, with most discussions centered on confirming or disconfirming racial stereotypes of others and themselves. Consequently, servicelearning experiences, although often powerful and important, must be thoughtfully integrated into an ongoing curriculum that supports the development of skills, knowledge, and attitudes across an array of connected experiences and not in distinct and isolated settings. Decisions about sequencing experiences must be made programmatically, not at the course level. Faculty could also benefit from tapping into the expertise of student affairs professionals in order to understand more fully how college students make sense of and integrate service-learning with other learning experiences outside the classroom.
The issues that Michael, Jenny, Dan, and Brooke explored through this first semester in teacher education were important; service-learning started them on a process of wrestling with issues of racial and social justice, caused them to think critically about their own experiences with schooling and diversity, prompted thought about unforeseen events, and raised new questions and problems for them to consider. Yet their experiences also indicate we still have much to learn about implementing service-learning that will lead to the personal transformation and deeper commitment to teaching for social justice that our world so sorely needs. While we remain enthusiastic about the potential of service-learning in teacher education, as this study illustrates, getting under the surface of students’ experiences requires consistent attention and effort and may also result in occasional uncomfortable intimacy, as well as doubt and uncertainty about what is actually being learned.
References and Further Readings
Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1992). Does direct experience change education students’ perceptions of low-income minority children? Midwestern Educational Researcher, 5(2), 29–31. Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1992, Winter). Racial identity development: Understanding racial dynamics in college classrooms and on campus. In M. Adams (Ed.), Promoting diversity in college classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 52 (pp. 21–37). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms’s White and people of color racial identity development models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hyland, N. E., & Noffke, S. E. (2005). Understanding diversity through social and community inquiry: An actionresearch study. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 367–381. Jones, S., Gilbride-Brown, J., & Gasiorski, A. (2005). Getting inside the “underside” of service-learning: Student resistance and possibilities. In D. W. Butin (Ed.), Servicelearning in higher education: Critical issues and directions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Kuh, G. (2008). High impact practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Lowe, R. (2000). Teachers as saviors, teachers who care. Race Traitor, 11. Retrieved from http://racetraitor.org/robertlowe forrt11.html Murtadha-Watts, K. (1998). Teacher education in urban schoolbased, multiagency collaboratives. Urban Education, 32(5), 616–631. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel Association. (2004). Learning
Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice: The 25th anniversary edition. New York, NY: Basic Books. Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (Eds.). (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Boyle-Baise, M., & Sleeter, C. E. (2000). Community-based service learning for multicultural teacher education. Educational Foundations, 14(2), 33–50. Dewey. J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: Heath. Dooley, J. C. (2007). The impact of service learning on student attitudes toward race and social justice (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(05). Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (Eds.) (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyler. J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gomez, M. L. (1996). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching “other people’s children.” In K. M. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 109–132). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Goodman, D. J. (2011). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Authors’ Note: We are grateful for the participation of the students in this study who shared their experiences so freely with the first author.
332–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: Authors. The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. O’Grady, C. R. (Ed.). (2000). Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zeichner, K. M. (1987). The ecology of field experience: Toward an understanding of the role of field experiences in teacher development. In M. Haberman & J. M. Backus (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 94–117). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45 DISMANTLING THE PERCEIVED HIERARCHY A Shared Intellectual Endeavor Between Faculty and Student Affairs TYNISHA D. MEIDL AND JENNIFER GARRETT NISSEN St. Norbert College
Because this was both a class and a service trip I was able to incorporate my passion of teaching and my desire to help others. I was able to spend time reflecting on my day, giving back to the school that gave me so much, experience the city, the culture, and help the community. These were all very rewarding experiences that added to the trip. The combination allowed for me to really deepen my appreciation for the culture, the city, and the students. I feel I took away so much from this trip that words would not even do it justice. Student reflection, 2009
S
ervice-learning is a pedagogical approach involving various partners, including faculty, staff, community members and agencies. These partners have critical responsibilities in ensuring that all play equal and specific roles, while achieving success and not undermining each other. It is important that all partners mutually and respectfully collaborate with each other to develop a relationship to enhance the student experience and student learning. Within institutions of higher education (IHE), faculty and student affairs professionals engage in a partnership to create high-impact community-based learning experiences. The faculty member provides course content, academic
coaching, and classroom oversight. The student affairs professionals often make and facilitate connections with the community, develop student leaders, and attend to logistics supporting curricula and co-curricular activities. As IHE partners work together, various intricacies have the potential to emerge, most especially as they involve the hierarchical structure within college environments. For example, one issue is whether it is the faculty member’s responsibility to support fund-raising efforts to help reduce the costs of a service trip. This question and other intricacies have the potential to make or break the entire servicelearning process. This chapter describes an intellectual endeavor shared between a faculty member and student affairs professional in an effort to create a high-impact learning experience for students. The authors share the approaches used in dismantling the perceived hierarchy that often exist in partnerships of this nature in IHE. The first author (a teacher education faculty member) and a student affairs professional share their unique perspectives on how they developed a collaborative partnership, leveraged their expertise, and bridged academic and student affairs. This partnership was born as a result of a service-learning opportunity where teacher education students had the opportunity to enroll in a three-week January term course, Reading Improvement in the Elementary and Middle School, that partially takes place in New Orleans, Louisiana. The partnership challenges a socially constructed hierarchy between faculty and student affairs professionals that resides in most institutions of higher education. 333
334–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
The Role of Academic Service-Learning at a Mission-Driven Institution St. Norbert College (SNC) is a Catholic, Norbertine, liberal arts college located in De Pere, Wisconsin. SNC serves an undergraduate population of approximately 2,300 students. Eighty-seven percent of the student population is White, and 59% are women. Thirty majors are offered, with the three largest being business, elementary education, and communications. The mission statement “St. Norbert College, a Catholic liberal arts college embracing the Norbertine ideal of communio, provides an educational environment that fosters intellectual, spiritual, and personal development” (St. Norbert College, 2014a), informs how students and courses are developed, as well as the types of curricular and co-curricular experiences SNC values. SNC makes a commitment to the students, faculty, and staff through the mission statement (Meacham, 2008). A college’s mission provides a framework for academic and co-curricular programs and “embodies the campus’s [sic] unique heritage, traditions, and values” (Meacham, 2008, p. 22). The mission reflects the issues of concern for the educational community shaping its unique identity. In the case of an institution whose mission is grounded in the relationship between the local and college community, service is more than educating students and meeting community needs; it focuses on the personal, spiritual, and intellectual development of the students and faculty involved. Academic service-learning (ASL) allows students to gain a deeper meaning of classroom content by requiring them to meet an identified community need through an organized service activity (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). The community served is at the forefront of ASL, demonstrating a reciprocal relationship, which “suggests that every individual, organization, and entity involved in servicelearning functions as both a teacher and a learner” (Mintz & Hesser, 1996, p. 36). ASL benefits the students, community members, and the institution of higher education as a whole. As a mission-driven institution, SNC prides itself on the ability to create holistic learning experiences to prepare students to grapple with the complexities of life. St. Norbert College seeks to “produce citizen-leaders who possess the comprehensive knowledge and virtue needed to build a just, compassionate, economically sustainable democracy” (Durden, 2003, p. 2). As an intellectual community, the college faculty, staff, and students are charged with the responsibility to respond individually and collectively to the needs of local and global communities. Academic service-learning is a priority in the college’s strategic plan. The Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning supports ASL initiatives. SNC has a faculty committee for ASL and a director of ASL who is a faculty member; and, as an institutional priority, a Faculty Fellows program was created to support faculty in their course
development or scholarly endeavors over the course of an academic year through meetings and discussions. Faculty participating in Faculty Fellows receive a stipend. Courses receive a special designation if they include a community engagement component. ASL as a pedagogy offers faculty and students the opportunity to connect learning to the mission.
An ASL Course at a Mission-Driven Institution The college’s mission transforms from words on the website to a lived experience. At SNC, ASL courses create opportunities for students to learn by doing. The course, Reading Improvement in Elementary and Middle School (EDUC 386), required for all elementary majors, is offered in the teacher education program, one of the largest majors at SNC. EDUC 386 provides preservice teachers with experience administering literacy assessments and implementing data-driven, evidence-based interventions. Historically, the course was offered twice a year with practicum in racially and linguistically homogenous schools in the greater Green Bay area, but without academic service-learning opportunities. The course offerings at that time offered prospective teachers limited teaching experiences in diverse communities. Survey feedback from graduating education majors in 2010 indicated the need for urban teaching experiences and increased contact with diverse learners. The first author surveyed then current students to determine their needs; 10 students expressed interest in an urban service trip in conjunction with a course. Using this knowledge, the faculty member sought a partnership with the institution’s Turning Responsibility into Powerful Service (TRIPS) program. In 2011, the third section of EDUC 386 was created. It is offered during the January term, which runs for three intensive weeks versus 15 weeks for a regular semester. This service-learning section is based in post–Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. Preservice teachers work in an urban school setting with culturally, linguistically diverse students who struggle with reading. They develop lessons for a small group and for one-on-one intervention, and they apply knowledge from the college classroom to a K–5 public school classroom. The experiences help prospective teachers formulate a comprehensive understanding of the challenges facing diverse learners. Sidebar 45.1 demonstrates how the course goals are articulated for students in the syllabus. This course emphasizes the importance of families, schools, and communities working together to support students’ development. As described in Sidebar 45.2, also taken from the syllabus, prospective teachers develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions enabling them to work successfully with diverse learners. In the four years this course has been offered, 40 students have participated; all were White and two were men. The majority of the students were from small towns and suburban areas in Wisconsin or from the Milwaukee and Chicago suburbs.
45. Dismantling the Perceived Hierarchy–•–335
Sidebar 45.1
Course Goals
• To provide students with a comprehensive view of social and cultural factors linked to the field of education • To challenge students to engage in critical examination of how and why social and cultural factors influence educational student success and teacher success • To enhance the knowledge and skills of teachers working with culturally and linguistically diverse learners, families, and communities • To challenge students to include “reading the word and reading the world” opportunities into their literacy lessons • To help give students a voice and sense of agency in their classrooms, schools, or community by engaging in a service-learning experience that allows for praxis
Sidebar 45.2
Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Knowledge Students will be able to • Understand the role of cultural awareness within the teaching profession • Understand the various paradigms related to multicultural education • Understand the role in assessing students using formative and summative assessment strategies in the literacy classroom • Administer assessments and use data to create lesson plans that meet the needs of the individual learner • Examine the cultural and ethnic dimensions of multicultural schools, families, and communities and their impact on literacy achievement Skills Students will be able to • Reflect on their own cultural awareness and its necessity in promoting respect of cultural beliefs and values among teachers, students, and administrators • Analyze teaching linguistically and culturally diverse (LCD) students vis-à-vis culturally responsive pedagogy, critical multiculturalism, and critical literacy • Create dynamic literacy lesson plans that engage students, promote student learning, and meet the needs of the LCD student Dispositions Students will • Embark on a cultural journey to challenge their current ways of knowing • Reflect on their own inter- and intrapersonal growth and development as a teacher and a student • Actively participate in activities, assignments, and cultural experiences
Shared Investment Through Partnership The New Orleans Urban Education trip was the first ASL trip offered by an academic discipline in conjunction with the TRIPS Program at SNC. Founded in 1978, TRIPS is a co-curricular program run by student affairs professionals that places an average of 140 students in teams of six to twelve in domestic and international service trips focused on a variety of social justice issues. TRIPS challenges
students to grow personally, intellectually, socially, and spiritually by putting their values, convictions, and religious beliefs into action through service. TRIPS connects students to the three traditions the college’s mission is grounded in the Catholic intellectual, liberal arts, and Norbertine traditions. The breadth of the experiences and leadership development are framed so that students develop the skills needed to function in a diverse society. Sidebar 45.3 details the goals of the program.
336–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Sidebar 45.3
TRIPS Program Goals
The TRIPS Program is designed to offer alternative break trips that will help students • Live Responsibly: Experience shared community responsibility and simple lifestyle • Seek Wisdom: Explore the call to service from multiple faith and value perspectives • Understand Differences: Value diverse cultures and perspectives; introduce students to new experiences and viewpoints that may challenge their faith, understanding, and values • Lead: Strengthen their individual and shared leadership through service • Act: Return motivated to continue working in direct service or political action
TRIPS and the teacher education program partnered using a framework that already existed for an education focused trip. This model allowed the faculty member and the student affairs professional to capitalize on meeting campus and community needs. The intention was not to duplicate the existing trip but to leverage the structures that were already in place when adding an academic component. The TRIPS staff and faculty member divide the tasks of planning the trip. The faculty member develops the course content, readings, and assignments for the course, and creates the syllabus. During the trip, the faculty member provides supervision in the classrooms, facilitates discussions and lessons, and provides time for the students to reflect. The program hosts more than a dozen trips each year operating on a small budget and requiring students to participate in fund-raising. There are systems in place to recruit and select participants, train student leaders, and identify suitable housing sites. The TRIPS Program staff make travel arrangements, manage the budget, file risk management and health paperwork, and provide 24-hour on-call support while the students are on the trip. Trip leaders have the cell phone numbers of the student affairs professionals, and the leaders are trained on what types of situations require a call. Dismantling the Hierarchy Faculty members may be perceived as the keepers, constructors, and disseminators of knowledge. Student affairs professionals are recognized as providing practical application of co-curricular experiences. This section discusses the intersection and the negotiations made in order for this ASL course and trip to be successful. This partnership disrupts the faculty versus student affairs hierarchy existent in higher education. TRIPS is a program led by students and supported by two student affairs professionals. One of the most important decisions is which students to select as leaders for the trip. Trip leaders lead pre-trip meetings and encourage students to think about the social justice issues their group will address. The trip leaders motivate others, coordinate schedules and tasks, manage crises, and are also teachers
and learners. They guide their participants through the experience. Sidebar 45.4 describes the learning outcomes for trip leaders, who are provided with this document so they can identify their current strengths and areas for growth. On a traditional student-led trip, the student affairs professional has criteria for selecting trip leaders, but in this instance, the criteria for selecting trip leaders had to be negotiated. The characteristics that the student affairs professional is looking for include the following: passion for the social justice issue, strong group development skills, and ability to manage multiple projects and solve problems. These core characteristics are the same; however, the faculty member looks for leaders who have the following: experienced the trip, passion for working with at-risk populations and urban education, cultural competence, and knowledge of best practices in reading assessment and instruction. Previous participation is required for trip leaders since they have background knowledge to help other students, have built relationships with teachers at the school, and have a sense of the city. In one instance, the student affairs professional identified strong leadership abilities in a student that could have translated into being a strong leader for this trip. Since the student had not taken the class previously, the student was not selected for this particular trip. The student affairs professional and the faculty member had to work together to decide what would be best for the group. After the trip leaders are selected, the student affairs professional and faculty member work together to orient the leaders. Trip leaders participate in an overnight retreat as well as weekly training sessions planned by the TRIPS staff. The student leaders learn about group development, conflict resolution, and reflection. Sidebar 45.5 describes the trip leader responsibilities, which help set the expectations for the role. The faculty member is not involved in the training sessions but meets weekly with the leaders to plan the participant meetings. Trip leaders and the faculty member discuss the pre-trip readings and prepare discussion questions so the leaders can facilitate a similar discussion with participants. Weekly meetings also include logistical planning,
45. Dismantling the Perceived Hierarchy–•–337
Sidebar 45.4
Trip Leader Learning Outcomes
As a trip leader, we hope you learn through your experience. You may not realize how much this will help you in your future plans and goals. You will gain some skills in each of the following three categories—leadership, job-specific and civicengagement skills. Leadership Skills • • • • • • • •
Public speaking Time management Collaboration Effective communication Problem solving Embracing change Motivating your peers Facilitating conversations
Job-Specific Skills • • • • •
Developing a fund-raising plan Cross-cultural experiences Interviewing others Making connections with community organizations Significant service experiences
Civic-Engagement Skills • • • • •
Critical thinking Multicultural awareness Understanding of social issues Ethical responsibility Practical competence
Source: St. Norbert College TRIPS Program (2014b).
such as discussing pre-trip service, reviewing transportation options, and planning the trip itinerary. Trip leaders are given the Ten Tips for Effective Facilitation (Sidebar 45.6), to provide leaders with a framework to guide weekly participant meetings. In addition, the student affairs professional and faculty member navigate aspects salient to the TRIPS Program, such as living simply to be in solidarity with “local” people. It is not equated with living in poverty but as a choice to raise consciousness. The aspects of simple living had to be negotiated and included conversations about the course content and TRIPS Program requirements. For example, students needed access to the Internet to interact with course material. As a result, the housing options had to include WiFi access. Another example of compromise is choosing a suitable housing site. The participants stay in a volunteer house with beds instead of sleeping on the floor of a church.
An unplanned disruption to this hierarchy is the need for the faculty member to be involved in the logistical aspects of the trip, and fund-raising is one example of disruption. as part of the TRIPS Program, participants raise funds to offset the cost of their trip. In the first year of this course, the faculty member did not prioritize fund-raising, as she felt fund-raising was not part of her role. As a result, the TRIPS Program had to provide additional funds for the trip. Since then, the faculty member has included discussions about fund-raising options in weekly conversation with trip leaders. Dan Butin (2010) interrogates the institutionalization of service-learning. He articulates the binaries created between whose knowledge is of the most worth, particularly in the sense of academic disciplines and areas of co-curricular learning. This relationship challenges those assertions and assumes that both the faculty member and the student affairs professional come to the experiences with valued knowledge.
338–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Sidebar 45.5
Trip Leader Responsibilities
• Team Building { Setting expectations and ground rules with the participants { Building up the character and “team spirit” of the group { Facilitating team building activities for the first couple of meetings • Logistics { Distributing, managing, and turning in all forms for yourself and your participants { Working with the TRIPS Community Partner Coordinator to develop your trip • Education { Educating the group on the social justice issue of your trip { Educating group on the sites and organizations with which you will be working • Cultural competency training { Organizing and setting up cultural competency with the TRIPS staff • Fund-raising and managing money { Ensuring that fund-raising goals are reached { Holding and spending the money while on the trip { Tracking expenses while on the trip and following the outlined procedures { Returning the receipts and extra money as instructed • Reflection { Facilitating preflections and during-trip reflections on the experiences and social justice issue of the trip • Reorientation { Discussing potential reorientation projects while on your trip { Managing people and resources to ensure reorientation project is completed { Discussing plans and execution with TRIPS staff Source: St. Norbert College TRIPS Program, 2014b.
Reflection is important to the TRIPS Program and course although the expectations of the reflections differ. Reflection in service-learning and community engagement literature is defined in a variety of ways. The process of reflection is integral and turns service from community service into service-learning. Reflecting on service gives students the opportunity to process their experience and link it to academic learning (Kolb, 1984; Morton, 1996). The TRIPS Program goals allow the participants to think about their experience in a larger context. One example of the difference is that prior to the departure for the trip, trip leaders meet with their participants weekly to build community, to educate themselves about the social justice issue, and to review logistics as required by the TRIPS Program. The faculty member complements this by requiring students to read Kozol’s Letters to a Young Teacher (2008) as a way to frame each pre-trip reflection. During the trip, the trip leaders conduct reflective conversations about their daily experiences. Sidebar 45.7 is the reflection guide that trip leaders receive to ensure that these conversations meet the desired outcomes. The faculty member sets up a daily reflection schedule in which students discuss as a group. One person synthesizes the
discussion and submits a one-page synopsis. Students also write individual reflections, which are graded. The course component allows for in-depth learning around the experience of at-risk youth and literacy development. These reflections are evaluated using the criteria described below. The student affairs professional and the faculty member construct meaningful learning experiences. The work is shared and individual strengths are leveraged. The success of the course and trip is a continual process, which improves each year.
Evidence of Success As a collaborative effort between academic and student affairs, the reality is it takes work to plan and implement the trip as well as to evaluate and make improvements for the following year. After each trip, the student affairs professional and faculty member meet to discuss successes and challenges and develop plans for the following year. They discuss the effectiveness of the trip leaders, which students exhibited growth, challenges faced at the school and housing site, group dynamics, and plans for the subsequent trip.
45. Dismantling the Perceived Hierarchy–•–339
Sidebar 45.6
Ten Tips for Effective Facilitation
Set ground rules Agree a set of ground rules with the group and make sure that they are prominently displayed so that they can be used a reference point in the event of disputes. Keep focus Keep the focus on the goals or outcomes to make sure the session stays on track. Actively listen Make sure that you are listening not just to what is being said but how it is being said. Pay attention to the nonverbal signs like the overall energy level or atmosphere in the room. Remain neutral Your role is to ask questions to get the group to think through consequences, not to dominate or make decisions for the group. Be positive Set the tone so that the best solutions can be found. Encourage participation All members of the group should contribute. Confront behaviors that will interfere with the group’s process. Protect ideas Step in when an individual feels attacked by other members of the group. Don’t evaluate Encourage the contributors to explain the background behind their ideas instead of commenting on them yourself. Observe your group 1. Atmosphere—Is it friendly or hostile, cooperative or competitive? 2. Participation—Who participated the most, the least; what is happening to help or hinder the group? 3. Commitment and Synergy—Is there evidence of group commitment and synergy; when did interest or energy lag; what was happening at the time? Then evaluate how you can approach the group with your observations to improve group dynamics. Be understanding Everyone has valuable things to share. Source: St. Norbert College TRIPS Program, 2014b.
Kathleen Rice (2010) uses the term reciprocity to describe the relationship among those engaged in service-learning in higher education. Reciprocity “does not expect something in exchange” (p. 3) between partners in service-learning work. Instead, “it acknowledges that all partners have wisdom, experience, skills, emotions
and capacity to contribute” (p. 3). To maintain reciprocity within the partnership key components were needed: vulnerability, transparency, and relationship building. To learn about each other’s goals, partners had to display vulnerability. The faculty member had to learn about the TRIPS Program and the importance of ensuring that
340–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Sidebar 45.7
Reflection Guide
While on your trip, your group will reflect each day. This is a guide with objectives for each day that you can use to create connected reflections throughout the week. The objectives should be integrated into activities, not just asked as questions. Pre-Trip Reflection: Getting to know your social issue • • • •
Type of service and population you will serve Needs of the community/population Experience of people served Personal motivations for working with the social justice issue
Reflection One: First Impressions • First impressions of your site • The need the community partner seeks to fill • Who the organization serves, why the organization exists Reflection Two: Continuing to Learn • Reactions from the day • Something new you learned • Experience(s) that will leave a lasting impression on you Reflection Three: Starting the Transition • The need for this social issue in your home communities • The breadth of the issue, how many people it affects • Personal change as a result of the service Reflection Four (last night): Wrapping Up • Individual and group accomplishments • Service opportunities available at home/school • Changes we plan to make in our choices at home/school because of the trip Post-Trip (Refocused): • Personal changes you’ve noticed since coming back • Adjustment from being on a trip to being back at school • Something that has stuck with you since your trip Source: St. Norbert College TRIPS Program, 2014b.
community needs were being met. The student affairs professionals needed to learn about the content of the course. Each had to be satisfied that the other brought a knowledge base to the process. Both considered the other’s viewpoint and developed mutual solutions when challenges arose. The faculty member understood the TRIPS Program and its goals while meeting the outcomes of the course. The student affairs professional learned the course requirements and how to support but not detract from the academic environment.
Transparency between the two parties was defined as being open about the challenges that may impact the course. The TRIPS staff must be upfront about their limited budget and the need to find additional sources of funding. In order to travel with the group, funding for the faculty member is a necessity. The faculty member had to employ transparency regarding the personal financial burden. The TRIPS Program pays for the faculty member’s gas rather than the faculty member receiving reimbursement at the college mileage rate. Because the faculty member
45. Dismantling the Perceived Hierarchy–•–341
drives from Wisconsin to New Orleans, two hotel nights are covered. The faculty member’s meals and housing expenses while in New Orleans are not covered. The faculty member anticipates additional funds from the department to offset these expenses or pays out of pocket, and personal financial contributions are evaluated each year. Relationship building is necessary in negotiating the experience. Because the trip leaders meet with the faculty member weekly and the trip leaders attend weekly training sessions separately, it is imperative to communicate about the outcomes of these meetings and the expectations of their roles. Throughout the process the student affairs professional and faculty member communicate about aspects of the trip, including the group dynamics, paperwork that needs to be completed, and other pertinent details. Building a strong relationship allows the faculty member and student affairs professional to enhance the experience of the participants and leaders. Success is evaluated by using multiple measures specifically for the TRIPS Program and the course. For the course, success is measured by a final reflective paper, course evaluations, and feedback from school staff. TRIPS measures success by collecting written feedback from participants and trip leaders, written reflections, and engaging in informal conversations. Each year students and New Orleans school staff provide feedback to improve the experience.
Conclusion Students, faculty, and staff at SNC are challenged to live by word and example, as articulated in the mission of SNC. Students are confronted with engaging yet rigorous course content. They are required to read complex texts, develop lesson plans, manage students, and reflect on their own teaching. Participants learn to live with others who have different life experiences and cultural backgrounds. The intellectual development of the faculty member and student affairs professionals occurs through planning, sharing expertise, and leveraging strengths. The partnership encourages them to reflect on course construction, ASL as a pedagogical practice, and how co-curricular
References and Further Readings Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing servicelearning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221–239. Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Campus Compact. (2003). Introduction to service-learning toolkit: Readings and resources for faculty (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Author.
programs support student development. Throughout the process, both parties have refined their practice and interrogated existing structures that have kept academic and student affairs as binaries. They work together to ensure community needs and student development are at the forefront of their work. They make collaborative decisions that have been traditionally seen as either student affairs work or academic affairs work. From planning to execution, this process is a shared intellectual endeavor.
Resources Break Away, www.alternativebreaks.org Break Away is a national nonprofit organization that promotes alternative school breaks where students engage in direct service. Staff support the creation and development of alternative break programs, including week-long trainings, conference calls, and hosting an online resource of community partners. HandsOn New Orleans, www.handsonneworleans .org HandsOn New Orleans provides service opportunities and bunkhouse-style living options for volunteers providing service to the New Orleans community. St. Norbert College TRIPS Program, www.snc .edu/trips The mission of the program is to support and develop students to engage their values, convictions, and religious beliefs in addressing the shared needs of our communities. Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning, www.snc.edu/sturzlcenter The Sturzl Center serves as a resource to increase community and civic engagement among faculty, students, and staff at St. Norbert College. The website provides resources for faculty, such as the faculty handbook for ASL, the Faculty Fellow application, and the newsletter published by ASL at SNC.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Durden, W. G. (2003, July 18). The liberal arts as a bulwark of business education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(45). Eggers, D. (2009). Zeitoun. San Francisco, CA: McSweeney’s Books. Esquith, R. (2007). Teach like your hair’s on fire: The method and madness inside room 56. New York, NY: Viking.
342–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Jacoby, B., & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kozol, J. (2008). Letters to a young teacher. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Broadway. Lee, S. (2006, August). When the levees broke: A requiem in four acts [Television documentary]. New York, NY: HBO. Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Meacham, J. (2008). What’s the use of a mission statement? Academe, 94(1), 21–24. Mintz, S. D., & Hesser, G. W. (1996). Principles of good practice in service-learning. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 26–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morton, K. (1996). Issues related to integrating service-learning into the curriculum. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 276–296). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Newton, F. B., & Ender, S. C. (2010). Students helping students: A guide for peer educators on college campuses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rice, K. (2010). Becoming a reflective community servicelearning professional. In B. Jacoby & P. Mustascio, Looking in reaching out: A reflective guide for community service-learning professionals (pp. 3–16). Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Rimmerman, C. A. (2011). Service-learning and the liberal arts: How and why it works. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. St. Norbert College. (2014a). Mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.snc.edu/mission/statement.html St. Norbert College. (2014b).Turning responsibility into powerful service. Retrieved from http://www.snc.edu/trips/ Stewart, T., & Webster, N. (Eds.). (2011). Exploring cultural dynamics and tensions with service learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
46 EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICE-LEARNING MENTORS Promoting Student Leadership MARY JANE EISENHAUER Purdue University North Central
T
he early childhood teacher education program at Purdue University North Central utilizes a servicelearning mentorship model to promote student leadership. Collaboration among faculty, the campus community service director, and students strengthens and promotes cross-campus and community relationships and engagement. The early childhood education curriculum includes a service engagement component during which students fulfill an identified community need. A weekly immersion experience connects the course objectives to learn about children, families, and communities with the service-learning project in a local agency serving children and families. Through the seamless union of purposeful interactions with the community and the course content, service and learning intersect to become one. This mentorship model was developed to meet the undergraduate students’ need for support and guidance while engaging in service-learning. Upper class students who successfully complete the course-based service-learning experience are eligible to apply for the position of Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentor (ECE-SLM) and assist with the development, implementation, and evaluation of service-learning curriculum and programming in the early childhood teacher education program. The mentor is an advocate for service-learning and community engagement across the campus while gaining interpersonal, professional, and leadership skills. This approach to student development using the pedagogy of service-learning fully integrates participants’ roles and responsibilities to reflect
a team approach to service-learning. The professor, community service director, and student mentor become partners in conceptualizing the service-learning project, building reciprocal relationships with community partners, and supporting students. The service-learning mentorship model holds many possibilities for replication in other programs and disciplines. This chapter focuses on the purpose of servicelearning in preservice teacher education and outlines the development and structure of the ECE-SLM. It includes a section describing the benefits, challenges, and opportunities for undergraduate student development, especially leadership and service engagement. The chapter ends with a discussion of implications and areas for further research.
Service-Learning in Early Childhood Teacher Education In recent years, early childhood education has gained national attention as a critical issue for communities. Concern for young children and their families span a range of complex questions: school readiness, health and safety, quality, and affordability in care. A coherent, connected, and focused attention to the curriculum, instruction, and assessment is necessary during the crucial period of early learning and development (Maeroff, 2006). Even with the spotlight on early childhood care and education from institutions, public policy initiatives, and community 343
344–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
and family resources, a single most important factor remains for young children’s success: Teachers are the key (Hedges, 2006; Hyson, 2003). Service-learning is an appropriate complement to the field of early childhood education as early childhood professionals not only work with children but interact with families, practitioners, and community agencies. The course learning goals cultivate a mutually beneficial experience for candidates and community partners.
Connection to Professional Preparation Standards A service-learning experience within the context of the teacher education program can address professional preparation standards. The service engagement at this institution’s program is aligned with the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Professional Preparation Standards and integrates theory with practice (Jamison & McCracken, 2007). Specifically, the servicelearning experience is expected to help preprofessionals meet NAEYC Standard 2 “Building Family and Community Relationships.” The service-learning experiences are designed to help candidates gain “knowledge and understanding of diverse family and community characteristics” and have opportunities to “involve families and communities in many aspects of children’s development and learning” (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2011, p. 31). The ECE-SLM model further enhances candidates’ experiences in meeting professional preparation standards. The mentor position is intended for advanced students who have completed similar course-based service-learning experiences. This previous involvement ensures that the ECE-SLM has knowledge and skills to guide current service-learning students through the course. Therefore, serving as a mentor presents another juncture to expand and deepen connections to professional standards. As stated in the NAEYC Standards for Professional Preparation (2011), early childhood professionals “are continuous, collaborative learners who demonstrate knowledgeable, reflective, and critical perspectives on their work, making informed decisions that integrate knowledge from a variety of sources” (p. 56). This description of Standard 6 “Becoming a Professional” aptly describes the ECE-SLM.
Context for Mentorship in an Early Childhood Course Becoming an early childhood professional is much broader than a teacher preparation program. The bigger picture is the impact that high-quality early childhood care and education has on the development of communities. The bachelor’s of science early childhood program at this institution is committed to preparing professionals who are wellversed and practiced in fostering authentic partnerships
with families, schools, and communities. A required course during the first year in the program is EDCI 276: Child, Family, School and Community Partnerships, identified specifically as a service-learning course. Recognizing that service-learning is inherent to the profession of early childhood, it is logical that candidates are exposed to the idea of community partnerships early in their studies. The course objectives explicitly connect the candidates’ learning with the service projects and specify that the candidates will • understand and value the role of the early childhood professional in addressing issues of diversity and anti-bias, • explore the ways in which children and families are diverse and how culture and background influence caregiving styles and practices, • gain awareness of community resources available to support early childhood care and education, and • develop culturally responsive strategies for involving families in their children’s learning and development.
To meet these goals, early childhood candidates consider concepts of family relationships and school partnerships in a weekly placement at a child care center, preschool, resource and referral agency, or social service agency which serve families or at libraries, parks departments, and schools. The purpose of the service-learning project is to meet an identified need and to increase the capacity of the community agency. To integrate these experiences with the course content, the service-learning students complete critical reflection exercises throughout the semester, responding to prompts such as “What did I learn (about myself as an early childhood professional or about families, colleagues, communities, agencies, etc.)? How did I learn it? Why is this learning important for me as a developing professional? What will I do in my future practice, in light of this learning?” Thus, the candidates synthesize their practical experience with the course objectives. Candidates who have successfully completed this course are then eligible to apply for the ECE-SLM position the following year.
Review of Literature At this institution, service-learning is a credit-bearing, educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and then reflect on the service activity in order to further understand course content and gain “a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996, p. 222). The pedagogy of service-learning complements early childhood teacher preparation as early childhood educators not only work with children, but also interact with families, other practitioners, and community agencies. Incorporating
46. Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentors–•–345
service-learning into teacher education programs presents opportunities for preservice teachers to gain real-world practice and to study the authentic needs of learners in context (Root, 1994). This course and the mentorship model are based on a conceptual framework adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) Ecological Systems Model. The concentric circles of structures that influence a child’s development are the key concepts for the course and steer the candidates’ service-learning projects and reflections. Course objectives accentuate the examination of systemic effects so candidates become aware of community resources and understand the interdependency of these influences. Participating in service engagement, candidates become integrated into the systems they are studying. When a faculty member uses a service-learning approach to course instruction, teacher education candidates expand and elaborate their knowledge of diversity, social justice, and community needs by applying their skills in a real-world situation serving diverse families and children (Meaney, Griffin, & Bohler, 2009). Through critical reflection, candidates articulate their role in the classroom and within the larger community (Pigza, 2010). Candidates are able to observe, to practice, and to work in environments that foster understanding of diversity and social justice (Baldwin, Buchanan, & Rudisill, 2007). The service-learning “enriches academic life and life-long learning by engaging [students] in meaningful hands-on service to the community while gaining valuable knowledge and skills that integrate with the course objectives” (Schoenfeld, 2004). As Stacie Goffin and Valora Washington (2007) point out, the field of early care and education has reached a significant point in its evolution. There is a vital need for “field-wide leadership capable of envisioning, advancing, and executing complex systemic change” (p. 10). One strategy for cultivating leadership is mentorship, a relationship between professionals that fosters collegiality and supports a reflective stance that connects theory and practice (Biddle, 2012). The ECE-SLM position parallels this process for the preservice teachers and serves as an induction to the professional roles and responsibilities demanded by the field. Engaging students as mentors grows the future leaders of the field with guided practice and supportive facilitation (Biddle, 2012, pp. 79–80).
The Service-Learning Student Leadership Model in Practice Since its inception in 2010, the Early Childhood ServiceLearning Mentor has been an important means for connection among undergraduate early childhood teacher education candidates. A main objective in developing the ECE-SLM position was to create leadership opportunities for advanced students to serve as role models and advise first-year
and sophomore students engaged in service-learning. ECE-SLMs are charged with administrative responsibilities to support the service-learning projects by facilitating community partnerships and coaching students enrolled in the service-learning course. Because ECE-SLMs have completed a similar experience, they often have a unique perspective and can provide necessary feedback, share useful recommendations, offer suggestions, and ultimately provide a more supportive structure for the variety of servicelearning projects. The mentorship model uses the expanding circles of the course framework to illustrate the scope of influence. The ECE-SLM comes into contact with individuals and organizations from all levels: preservice teachers, children and families, community partners, faculty, and the larger community. With each entity, the ECE-SLM acts as coach, advocate, educator, advisor, and consultant for the service engagement (see Figure 46.1). The author has been conducting a research project intended to clarify the effects of service-learning projects in early childhood education on the participants—the teacher candidates and the community partners (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013). Although the mentorship position was not emphasized in the primary research question, responses to the ECE-SLM emerged through the focus groups. This feedback has shaped the ongoing development of the mentorship model.
Partnerships in Early Childhood Service-Learning Fostering strong partnerships with community organizations is a fundamental principle to the mentorship model. The notion of reciprocity as a key ingredient to service-learning was echoed by a community partner who said, “Whether the student is going to learn or the whether the other participant is going to learn . . . it is not as simple as just going and volunteering for that day; it’s deeper than that” (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013). Beyond direct benefits to the agencies, many community partners feel a sense of reward by giving back to the profession. They work with the ECE-SLM to set up placements for early childhood candidates. Several community partners made comments about the early childhood students who come in “and work with people that they have never met before . . . maybe they’ve never seen a child who has a disability before . . . they learn a lot from that . . . they gain confidence” (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013). This confidence is necessary to succeed in this service-oriented profession.
Process for Selecting the Mentor Each step of the ECE-SLM selection process is intentionally designed to simulate what candidates may encounter in the real world (see Figure 46.2).
346–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Community-at-large: campus, community service director, professional networks Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentor
Engaged faculty: course instructor Community partners: child care centers, social service agencies Clientele: experienced teachers, children and families
Service-learning student: early childhood preservice teacher, peers
Figure 46.1 Model for Service-Learning Mentorship
As the Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentor, the student Participates in the course and service-learning project
Submits application for Service-Learning Mentor position in following year: resume, letters of reference
Interviews with faculty and campus service-learning coordinator
Selected as Service-Learning Mentor: shadows campus service-learning coordinator Coaches and mentors students enrolled in the course: provides peer support and guidance Supports and advises community partners: site visits, technical assistance Fulfills professional roles and responsibilities: coordinates student volunteers at early childhood conference, makes presentations to campus about service engagement
Submits final report: reflective supervision with faculty, suggestions for improvement
Figure 46.2 Step-by-Step Process for ECE-SLM
46. Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentors–•–347
Early childhood candidates pursuing the ECE-SLM submit a letter of intent, a resume, and two references, including one from a community partner. The application is one of many undertakings to practice professional skills. Prospective mentors are interviewed by the instructor and the campus community services director. Writing a resume, discussing career goals, and requesting letters of reference are important proficiencies that support the candidates’ later success in the workplace.
Sometimes, the guidance needed is as basic as explaining how to make contact with a community partner, as illustrated by one student’s comment:
ECE-SLM Activities and Responsibilities
Another early childhood candidate felt that because the ECE-SLM was “older . . . with more of a knowledge base, she helped us out a lot.” (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013) In developing relationships with the students, the ECESLM becomes more invested in the undergraduates’ experiences in the program. With a small number of candidates, this integration across the program fostered a sense of shared responsibility for student success, helping to create a stronger community among all early childhood teacher candidates. Because course-based service-learning highlights cooperation and responsibility, it adds a value to the academics (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Past ECE-SLMs were dutiful about their obligation as a peer mentor. The 2013 ECE-SLM described her work this way:
The ECE-SLM assists the course instructor with coordinating service-learning sites, counseling students with design and implementation of service-learning projects, organizing student participation at the campus’ annual early childhood conference, and sharing informal and formal presentations about service-learning to the campus community. The duties were described by the 2013 ECE-SLM: My role encompassed many responsibilities. I was to contact some of the community partners and coordinate the partnership between the agency, faculty, and student; act as a liaison between the agency and the faculty; and help the students navigate their way through the class and their first experience in the field. (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013)
Each ECE-SLM contributed to an outline for the position’s responsibilities (see Table 46.1). By adding to the model, ECE-SLM further their understanding of servicelearning by applying the knowledge and skills learned in the course in a mentoring capacity.
Opportunities for Leadership ECE-SLMs must demonstrate exceptional understanding of service engagement through an exemplary servicelearning project so they can effectively serve as ambassador to promote service-learning in the early childhood program across campus and with community partners.
Peer Mentoring The primary function of the ECE-SLM is to provide support for the students, which can take many forms— conversations, demonstrations, coaching. The 2010 ECESLM recognized the value in the mentoring to promote student success beyond the instructor-student relationship: It allows the ECE students to seek peer support, which may allow for opportunities for the students to ask questions that they may not ask their teacher. The SLM position is a fantastic opportunity, which encourages networking and leadership. (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013)
Calling my service-learning site was a challenge for me. I do not really like to make phone calls. [The ECE-SLM] helped a lot when she came and talked to our class. She told us what to say and how to handle the first day. When I finally made the phone call it was not as scary as I thought it would be. (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013)
I was not only working with community partners, [the course instructor] and [community service director], but I was working with the students of EDCI 276. My role with the students was to be there for them to help them with whatever they needed. At times I would help them finish their projects and at other times I was there to inform them that everything will come together in the end and it will all be okay. My main goal with the students was to make a difference in their lives. Also, to show them how important it is to be hard-working and dedicated, especially when doing the thing you love. (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013)
This commitment and cultivation of professionalism through the development of relationships is critical to the advancement of the early childhood profession (Biddle, 2012).
Collaborating With Community Partners The ECE-SLM recruits and communicates with community partners. During the semester-long servicelearning course, candidates work with a site supervisor to complete a project. For example, candidates have organized a preschool’s library, assisted with cooking projects in a toddler classroom, and created a children’s garden at a child care center. As students in the course, the candidates’ exposure to the variety of community partners is
348–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
EDCI 276 Course Mentoring Step 1
Create a log to document hours.
DECEMBER
Step 2
Draft introductory letter to potential community partners.
DECEMBER
Step 3
Create database of potential service learning partnership agencies.
DECEMBER
Step 4
Research minigrant programs. Consider: Application Procedure, Criteria, Timeline, Selection Committee, Award Amount, and Reporting.
DECEMBER/ JANUARY
Step 5
Identify key points to share with students: What is service-learning? What was your experience? What is your role as an ECE-SLM? Devise at least two ways that students can get into contact with you and each other. Communicate about when/where you will be available for consultation.
DECEMBER/ JANUARY
Step 6
Prepare step-by-step handout for students’ first visit to the agency; include one-page needs assessment for students to use.
JANUARY
Step 7
Assist with follow-up calls to agencies.
JANUARY
Step 8
Collate service-learning folders for students’ coursework.
JANUARY
Step 9
Prepare a brief presentation to share with class about service-learning. Incorporate Step 5 into presentation.
JANUARY 19 or 26
Step 10
Develop survey for agency partners to evaluate their experience; provide feedback.
MARCH
Campus Annual Early Childhood Conference Step1
Serve on conference planning committee. Invite all student clubs to participate, including athletes. Oversee student volunteers. Coordinate room monitors.
DECEMBER/ JANUARY MARCH/APRIL
Step 2
Promote the conference on campus and promote student involvement with the conference.
DECEMBER/ JANUARY
Step 3
Coordinate with Center for Service Learning and Leadership for the Spotlight on Service—Showcase of Service-Learning Projects.
MARCH/ APRIL
Step 4
Support service-learning students’ poster presentation. Explain the day (how to set up, etc.).
MARCH/APRIL
Ongoing Responsibilities Step 1
Maintain records of partnerships, including contact information, student placed, and booklets.
JANUARY–APRIL
Step 2
Maintain communication with students throughout the semester. Problem solve and trouble shoot.
JANUARY–APRIL
Step 3
Accompany instructor to service-learning site visits; take photos.
JANUARY–APRIL
Table 46.1
ECE-SLM Roles and Responsibilities
limited to just one or two. The ECE-SLM gets a widespread view of the range of needs and types of agencies. The 2013 ECE-SLM revealed, “I never knew how many
community partners work out there. I have learned that community partners need us as much as we need them,” demonstrating an evolving awareness of the wider
46. Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentors–•–349
landscape of need and the concept of reciprocity (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013).
Service-Learning on Campus and Beyond In addition to working with peers, community partners, and the faculty member, the ECE-SLM shadows the campus community services director. The ECE-SLM then sees how things work “behind-the-scenes” and engages in reflective supervision with both the faculty member and the community services director. The ECE-SLM works closely with the campus community services director to promote service-learning and the scholarship of engagement to all students, faculty, and administrators across campus. Reflecting on this experience, an ECE-SLM stated that the campus community services director “really showed me what service-learning is all about . . . made me grow not only as a student but as a person. I will be able to take all these lessons and teach them to my students one day” (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013). This ECE-SLM recognized the progression of her leadership skills beyond the course and program. Through this partnership with the campus community service director, the ECE-SLM is exposed to and connected with the larger statewide service-learning community. ECE-SLMs are encouraged to attend and present at the annual statewide Service Engagement Summit. This professional development opportunity reinforces the importance of and connection to the greater pedagogy of service-learning across disciplines.
Becoming a Professional The most tangible evidence of growth for the mentors was the presentations at national, state, and regional conferences. Each ECE-SLM had an opportunity to travel to another state or city, meet college students and professionals from around the country, and formally present their perspective as a service-learning mentor. When one ECESLM spoke to standing-room-only crowd at the Governor’s Conference on Service and Volunteerism, she realized the power of her voice in advocating for her field. She was thrilled to report, “People really like what I did. They want to collaborate with us. So many people in the audience had no idea about high quality early childhood education” (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013). The experience of these presentations was daunting for some, but it resulted in tremendous growth and learning. I’ve gained many benefits as the ECE-SLM. I would have to say the main benefit I gained was confidence. I am no longer afraid to think outside the box, to meet new people, to get involved with new experiences. This experience has really opened my eyes . . . showed me that it is okay to speak your mind because if you don’t step up for what you believe in,
then how can you make a difference and it’s okay to make difference. (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013)
As the field of early childhood changes, emerging professionals—today’s candidates—will have to embrace the unknown, remain flexible, and be committed to lifelong learning (Biddle, 2012).
Looking Ahead: Issues to Explore The mentorship model has been supported by grants and private donations to date. Some mentors received an hourly wage for their work, and the most recent ECE-SLM was awarded a one-time scholarship. It would be helpful to examine if the extrinsic rewards made a difference in terms of motivation, productivity, and sense of satisfaction. The stipend makes the position appealing to the candidates, but it is necessary to explore innovative options for sustainability. The early childhood teacher education program at this institution is growing so only five candidates have served as ECE-SLM. Their time as ECE-SLM prepared them for a professional life, which is likely enhanced by their continued civic engagement. Of these former mentors, one has gone on to be a kindergarten teacher, one a family support specialist, and another a developmental therapist. Each has remained actively engaged in service to professional and social service organizations, one as an officer in the local chapter of a professional organization and another who initiated a grant application to fund a self-directed service project. Yet, it is too soon to know if the effects of this mentoring experience will be long lasting. Following these candidates as they graduate and pursue opportunities in the field of early childhood education will provide more insight.
Conclusion After serving as the ECE-SLM, I have become more involved in opportunities for service and leadership. I am very excited to see what these opportunities will bring for me in my life. I spend a lot of time talking about my experience to classmates, family, friends, and even co-workers. (Eisenhauer & Weaver, 2013)
Through service-learning, preservice teachers are exposed to the real challenges facing families, children, schools, and communities. The ECE-SLM model goes further to provide the candidate authentic opportunities to develop leadership skills and engage with the early childhood profession, the campus, and the community. The ECE-SLM model can inform other disciplines and programs about student mentoring in their efforts to serve the community.
350–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
References and Further Readings Baldwin, S. C., Buchanan, A. M., & Rudisill, M. E. (2007). What teacher candidates learned about diversity, social justice and themselves from service-learning experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 315–317. Biddle, J. K. (2012). The three Rs of leadership: Building effective early childhood programs through relationships, reciprocal learning, and reflection. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221–239. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.6 .723 Eisenhauer, M. J., Marthakis, N., Jamison, J. R., & Mattson, M. (Eds.). (2011). Charting the course for service-learning: From curriculum considerations to advocacy. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Campus Compact. Eisenhauer, M. J., & Weaver, L. (2013). [The impact of servicelearning: Measuring ripples and waves]. Unpublished raw data. Goffin, S. G., & Washington, V. (2007). Ready or not: Leadership choices in early care and education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hedges, L. V. (2006, December). Children’s achievement: What does the evidence say about teachers, pre-k programs and economics policies? Policy briefing presented at the Institute for Public Policy and Research at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Retrieved from http://www.ipr .northwestern.edu/events/briefing/briefingDec06.html Hyson, M. (2003). Preparing early childhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Indiana Campus Compact. (2014). Welcome to Indiana Campus Compact. Retrieved from http://www.indianacampus compact.org
Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. (2014). Center for Service & Learning. Retrieved from http://csl .iupui.edu Jamison, J., & McCracken, J. (2007). Enhancing student learning and retention through service-learning. Funded grant No. 2007 0320-000 from the Lilly Endowment Inc. to Indiana Campus Compact, 2007–2010, 1. Maeroff, G. (2006). Building blocks: Making children successful in the early years of school. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Meaney, K. S., Griffin, K., & Bohler, H. R. (2009) Servicelearning: A venue for enhancing pre-service educators’ knowledge base for teaching. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1–17. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2011). 2010 NAEYC standards for initial and advanced early childhood professional preparation programs. Washington, DC: Author. Pigza, J. M. (2010). Fostering student learning and development through reflection. In B. Jacoby & P. Mutascio (Eds.), Looking in, reaching out: A reflective guide for community service-learning professionals. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Root, S. (1994). Service-learning in teacher education: A third rationale. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1(1), 94–97. Schaumleffel, N. A. (Ed.). (in progress). Cooperate—Advancing your nonprofit organization’s mission through college & community partnerships: A guide for nonprofit leaders. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Campus Compact. Schoenfeld, R. M. (2004). Service learning guide & journal. Seattle, WA: Guide & Journal Publications. Vogelgesang, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community service and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 25–34. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027/ spo.3239521.0007.103
47 CRITICAL SERVICE-LEARNING Implications for Social Emotional Development CASSANDRA MCKAY-JACKSON AND ANNETTE JOHNSON University of Illinois at Chicago
his chapter acts as a bridge between social sciences, civic engagement, and service-learning through the use of theoretical frameworks: strengths-based perspective, positive youth development (PYD), resiliency theory, and critical youth empowerment (CYE) and their relevance to school social work practice. The authors assert that using critical service-learning (CSL) as a social work intervention may promote empowerment, and social and emotional learning for students, especially those marginalized within special education services.
T
social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision making. Some descriptors of social emotional competency include the ability to (a) reach out to others to assist them in achieving their goals; (b) recognize the thoughts, feelings, and perspectives of others, including those that are different than one’s own; and (c) accurately define decisions to be made, generate alternative solutions, anticipate the consequences, and evaluate and learn from those decisions (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2005).
Social Emotional Development
School Social Work
Brain research purports that emotions play a critical role in driving attention, memory, and other important mental or intellectual activities, and that when learning is meaningful and sustainable, intellect and emotions are inseparable. Moreover, classical philosophers of education would concur that education is not just the learning of facts and scientific theories, but also encompasses emotions, fundamental moral principles, and the development of character by which to act upon these principles. In today’s language, this phenomenon is termed social and emotional learning (SEL). Social and emotional learning is defined as the process by which people learn to recognize and manage emotions, develop care and concern for others, make good decisions, behave ethically and responsibly, develop positive relationships, and avoid negative behaviors. SEL is primarily discussed in school-based settings, and is structured around five core competencies: self-awareness,
Many of today’s schools recommend that SEL be embedded within the classroom curriculum. However, schoolbased clinicians such as school social workers provide SEL instruction in a variety of settings both within and outside the classroom. School social work is a specialized area of practice within the diverse social work profession. School social work as a specialty emerged out of the settlement house movement of the early 1900s. Many cities, such as Chicago (IL), Boston (MA), Hartford (CT), and New York (NY), adopted this new specialty as “visiting teachers” that acted as a liaison between immigrant families and schools in hopes of easing the strain of assimilation. For example, the Chicago Public Schools employed their first school social workers in 1919. The job description was fashioned by the policies concerning compulsory attendance. School social workers served as advocates for the child and family, ensuring that students received the maximum benefit from 351
352–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
public education. Contemporary school social workers continue to support the home, school, and community. In addition to serving general education students, school social workers also serve youths who receive special education services and those at risk for school failure. Their overall goal for all students, however, is to support the development of social and emotional learning by providing prevention and intervention services that align with the academic development of the child. Strategies by which to attain social emotional development may include school social workers providing individual counseling sessions, or hosting social skills groups for targeted students in need of more intensive skill development. An interdisciplinary approach could also entail teachers and school-based clinicians collaborating on classroom based projects, which promote the application of SEL competencies. Such an activity could consist of a critical service-learning project, a participatory mechanism by which the SEL process can be actualized via planned coordinated experiences and activities
Service-Learning and Critical Service-Learning Although SEL and service-learning have evolved independently of each other, both address the healthy development of the student. Service-learning helps to develop the SEL competencies and provide a forum to apply these skills in a variety of real-life settings and situations (Fredericks, 2003). J. David Hawkins (1997) asserts that when students perceive opportunities for involvement in meaningful activities that foster rewards and recognition, they are more likely to develop strong bonds to school; standards, beliefs, and behaviors that promote academic achievement; and less antisocial behavior. Further, service-learning is an educational strategy and encompasses a philosophy of youth empowerment assisting young people in developing the assets needed for active citizenry. According to Roger A. Hart (1992) some school settings and youth organizations limit the youth learner to only peripheral participatory activities where youth presence is articulated by adults but the youths are not fully engaged as decision makers within the activity. For example, youth artwork is collected and used to design a playground but the youths are never consulted or informed of this, or youths sit on a board panel because of their age and not the caliber of their contribution. Hart (1992) equated these experiences to the lowest rung on the ladder of participation for youths. In contrast, the highest rungs on this ladder seek to engage youths as fully informed and joint decision makers in the activities that they experience. This exemplifies that active citizens exercise choice, voice, and decision making. These components can be encouraged through critical servicelearning (Morgan & Streb, 2001). Critical service-learning (CSL) is a distinct subset of service-learning. In addition to promoting experiential
learning, CSL challenges issues of power, privilege, and oppression. The following provides clarification of the differing approaches to service, service-learning, and critical service-learning. A student who cleans up a riverbank conducts a service project, but a student in a classroom who examines water samples is learning. That same student, who takes water samples from the river, analyzes those samples documenting the results and presenting the results of the analysis to a pollution control agency is conducting a service-learning project. Lastly, the student who creates a public service announcement to raise awareness of the human impact of the water quality of that water sample in order to bring about social change within his or her community is conducting a critical service-learning project (Cipolle, 2010). Such school- and community-based initiatives that engage young people as active social agents encourage youths to participate as active citizens, assessing community needs, participating in substantive decisions, and implementing solutions (Golombek, 2006; McKay & Johnson, 2010). It further encourages current citizenry where youth are engaged as decision-making contributors who can impact their current world, not just that in the future.
Empirical Support James P. Connell, Michelle A. Gambone, and Thomas J. Smith (2001) suggest that the long-term goals of community-based youth development initiatives must support young people’s life chances through the promotion of their economic self-sufficiency, healthy family and social relationships, and contribution to their community. These objectives can be met through multiple supportive relationships with adults and peers; challenging and engaging activities and learning experiences; and meaningful opportunities for involvement and membership. CSL has shown promise in engaging youth at risk of dropping out of school by promoting voice, choice, and opportunities for meaningful participation. In a current study, Cassandra McKay-Jackson, Linda Campos-Moreira, Annette Johnson, and Erik Engle are exploring the impact of critical servicelearning on student engagement indicated by grade point average, behavior logs, and attendance. The researchers have introduced a service-learning component within school social work groups for youths receiving specialized services. Preliminary findings reflect that there is a positive correlation between attendance and grade point average, and that there is a positive correlation between the service-learning group component and attendance.
Theoretical Framework Several theoretical models inform this pedagogical approach, including the strengths-based perspective, positive youth development, resilience theory, and the critical youth empowerment model. A cornerstone of the social
47. Critical Service-Learning–•–353
work profession, strengths-based perspective focuses on assets rather than deficits and pathology; recognizes what the student and family bring in terms of strengths, resilience, and social support; and shifts from problem identification as defined by the clinician to possibilities and strengths as identified in an egalitarian, collaborative relationship with the student. Similarly, the positive youth development approach is also asset based. This relatively young model for youth work was developed to counter a more pathological approach to working with youth. PYD focuses on building healthy communities and the belief that when young people are welcomed to participate in civic affairs as participants, not solely as recipients, they tend to experience optimal development. Through this approach, meaningful service-learning methodologies can socialize adults to engage young people in roles beyond that of passive students (Golombek, 2006). This approach is often associated with the mantra “problem free is not fully prepared” (Pittman, Irby, & Ferber, 2001, p. 6) emphasizing an inclusive approach to work with all youth not just those at risk of failure in whatever capacity. PYD encompasses psychological, behavioral, and social characteristics known as the 5 Cs, which are competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner, 2004; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Although not entirely linear, Stephen Hamilton, Mary Hamilton, and Karen Pittman (2004) posit that there is a flow to the 5 C’s manifestation. Competence and character are considered central to this approach. Through their connection to one another, and especially caring adults, young people gain competence and character, and their competence and character can in turn help them to form new connections. Further, confidence flows from competence, and these two constructs mutually reinforce each other. Helena Jelicic, Deborah Bobek, Erin Phelps, Richard Lerner, and Jacqueline Lerner (2007) further assert that possession of these traits generates a sixth C, contribution to self, family, community, and civil community. Embedded within PYD is resiliency theory: the belief that every person has the ability to overcome adversity if important protective factors are present in that person’s life. Such protective factors include caring adults (familial and nonfamilial) who set high expectations with support to meet those expectations and provide opportunities for youth to participate in meaningful ways within their school and communities (Krovetz, 1999). Attributes of resilience consist of social competence, problem-solving skills, autonomy, critical consciousness, and a sense of purpose and a future (Benard, 1995). These characteristics align with the 6 Cs of the PYD approach. Expanding on the PYD component of connection, the critical youth empowerment model emphasizes (a) equitable power sharing between young people and adults; (b) engagement of young people in critical reflection on interpersonal and sociopolitical processes; (c) meaningful participation in sociopolitical processes to effect change; and (d) integrated individual- and community-level
empowerment (Jennings, Parra-Medina, Hilfinger Messias, & McLouglin, 2006). Empowerment is critical to the foundation of strengths-based school social work practice. Within this model, practitioners support the building of youths’ capacity to address adverse situations by developing coping abilities, gaining understanding of their sociopolitical environments, and building collective relationships with families, groups, and communities.
Implementing a CSL Project In the final year of their Master of Social Work (MSW) graduate program, school social work interns at the Jane Addams College of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Chicago facilitate a CSL project within their public school internships. Field instruction (internship) is the signature pedagogy of the social work profession, yet it is not the same as CSL. All MSW students, regardless of specialty (e.g., community health, child and family, mental health, and school social work) must complete at least one internship in the MSW program. These internships vary in focus, but are all committed to the acquisition of “knowledge and skills for intervention with individuals, groups, families, communities or other systems in the restoration, maintenance and enhancement of social functioning” (Jane Addams College of Social Work, n.d.). Field instruction provides the forum for experiential learning and application of coursework curriculum, whereas CSL demands not only a critical investigation of relevant issues but promotes youth activism as a part of service. Within the school social work concentration, the first step in CSL implementation is that the interns must establish a therapeutic relationship with the youths so that interns can assess youths’ capacity for taking on the CSL project. Over the course of their final year, these interns work with youths on an individual, group, or classroom basis supporting the development of social emotional learning. These often are not “students of the month” nor those on school council yet students who exhibit some resilience and beginning skills to execute courses of action required to attain project completion. The next critical step is to advise the K–12 school administration of the upcoming project. Often because of the empowering nature of CSL, an autocratic school climate may resist students in high-risk situations from implementing a youth-led project. Hence, interns must present an argument of the benefits of the projects for this population and attempt to garner initial buy-in from administration and other school personnel involved. As previously implied, the CSL project is transformative, not only for the youths but also for the administration and staff, who often perceive these youths from a different perspective. Also, at the point of facilitating the CSL project with the youths, interns transform their role into project facilitator in order to promote a more youth-directed experience for the youths involved.
354–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
A critical component to the CSL project is the brainstorming exercise or community Web activity (see Linda Lantieri, 1999 for further details). This activity may span three to five sessions and encourages youths to brainstorm what they would like to change within their community (i.e., school or neighborhood). For many of the CSL projects, the school community is the focus of the activity. The initial brainstorming session is youth centered, with little to no adult redirection, so all items must be recorded. During the initial brainstorming session, youths may seek to change (a) the degree of homework assigned, (b) what is served in the lunchroom, or (c) the level of peer pressure in the school. In subsequent sessions, youths are encouraged to assess the degree of power that they possess (which they often underestimate) to improve their environment. In contrast to a teacher-centered process where the project is chosen by the teacher and youths simply need to sign up to “put in their hours,” this youth-centered process is empowering and validates the voices of the youths, the issues that they identify, and the various ways by which they will make a positive impact. Once youths democratically decide on the project to undertake they begin the collaborative planning process with identified school personnel, community members, and parents (with tempered guidance from the intern). The final step of the project implementation is youths’ evaluation of the effectiveness of the project not only for those served but also for themselves and how their individual SEL goals were addressed. Often the completion of the project warrants some type of formal presentation to the school or community. Whether during an all school assembly, or with a smaller audience, the youth seek to showcase their project as a way to highlight their own strengths that oftentimes have been overlooked by school personnel (McKay, 2010). An example of a completed project follows. One intern worked with a group of six high school males in a special education program called Transitions. The students in this program received services to address their emotional and behavioral needs. Prior to the CSL project, the intern co-facilitated group therapy once a week for 42 minutes, rotating throughout the class periods in order to ensure that students did not miss a significant portion of any one subject. This group consisted of a racially diverse population who struggled with passing classes, demonstrating appropriate classroom behaviors, and making positive decisions inside and outside of the school environment. The overall goal of the Transitions program, hence, was to develop students’ skills in problem solving, coping methods, interacting with others, self-advocacy, and executive functioning in order to achieve personal and academic success. Prior to embarking on the brainstorming sessions, the intern had previously met with the necessary support structures within the school in order to alert them of the upcoming project. After the intern engaged the students in several community Web sessions, the students decided to
self-advocate for a field trip to the local museum, a privilege denied to this group of students within the special education program. The students’ rationale for their decision was that other students receiving general education were allowed to attend field trips to an amusement park, the movie theaters and the like, yet these students were excluded from such privileges. In this instance, service took the form of a collective effort to change a discriminatory policy that impacted students receiving special education services. Recognizing that the project would require additional school personnel, the intern worked with the Transition program teachers, the director and coordinator of special education, the principal, and additional pupil personnel services staff persons. All involved personnel were made aware of the connection between the students’ SEL goals and the CSL project, and the director, coordinator, and Transition teachers were kept abreast of progress and changes within the proposed project. A critical shift in youth empowerment occurred when the students met directly with the director of special education services. Youths were able to share their concerns about being excluded from participating in field trips, and the director acknowledged that the unwritten policy was a department-wide concern and needed to be changed. The director agreed that the CSL project readily aligned with SEL goals and that a field trip would extend SEL to outside of the school into the larger community. The director and coordinator, both new in their positions, were eager to address additional concerns within the special education department. Yet, the Transition teachers were less on board with the use of the CSL project as an innovative means to support social emotional development. Despite a mixed reception to the CSL project, the intern and the students agreed to work on improving their behavior, as well as grades from failing to passing in order to earn the field trip. With some guidance from the intern the group worked on their problem-solving skills by developing a buddy system for one another. The CSL project became the counter narrative to the previous negative messages shared regarding the group’s undeserving behavior. The group further supported an environment by which students could actively practice new social skills, such as offering and receiving help and generating alternative solutions in a way that was meaningful to them. The intern administered the Social Responsibility scale (Nedwek, 1987) to assess the student’s level of social responsibility. Initially equated as low, during the project students began to present greater responsibility and problem-solving skills throughout the project and concurrent group work. Staff noticed students encouraging one another to go to class and finish work, and teachers acknowledged students’ improvement in grades and overall classroom behavior. Due to time constraints, the group was unable to participate in a field trip. Although disappointed, the intern
47. Critical Service-Learning–•–355
reported that group members were pleased with the opportunity to be heard by the director of special education services, as well as the knowledge that they made a positive impact on their fellow group mates through supporting grades and behavior improvement in the process.
become an equal opportunity pedagogy for all students despite financial resources or student’s academic or behavioral challenges.
Conclusion Implications As presented here, CSL is an innovative approach to engaging youths receiving special education services. Yet, few schools provide students with the opportunity for choice and contribution, elements that may support such engagement. Only about 24% of all K–12 public schools offer service-learning (Spring, Grimm, & Dietz, 2008) with even fewer high-poverty schools doing so. Schools with more adequate resources express their value of meaningful participation of students and active citizenry, yet a demarcation of investment and opportunities between schools further perpetuates inequality between students with access to resources and those without (Roscigno, TomaskovicDevey, & Crowley, 2006). Critical service-learning must
References and Further Readings Benard, B. (1995). Fostering resiliency in children. ERIC Digest. (ED 386327). Retrieved from http://chiron.valdosta .edu/whuitt/files/resilience.html Cipolle, S. B. (2010). Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2005). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based SEL programs (Illinois Edition). Chicago, IL: Author. Connell, J. P., Gambone, M. A., & Smith, T. J. (2001). Youth development in community settings: Challenges to our field and our approach. In P. Benson & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth development: Visions, realities and challenges. (pp. 291–307). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1998). The development of the person: An experiential perspective on the ontogenesis of psychological complexity. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 635–684). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Fredericks, L. (2003). Making the case for social and emotional learning and service-learning. Education Commissions of the States. Retrieved from http://static.squarespace.com/ static/513f79f9e4b05ce7b70e9673/t/526a23bee4b0f35a9eff c4dc/1382687678826/making-the-case-for-social-andemotional-learning-and-service-learning.pdf
Confining students to curriculum without opportunity for real-world application may support silos of disconnected knowledge and passive citizenry versus active participants in the advancement of progress. As young people are perceived as desiring to participate in their own development and contribute to others, they are viewed as progressing toward an optimal and complex self, one who has good interpersonal skills and also plays an active part in the social, political, religious, and cultural affairs of the community (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1998), which is the overall goal of socially and emotionally developed citizens.
Authors’ Note: Special acknowledgement to Sarah P., MSW, for her contribution to this chapter concerning the Transitions group.
Golombek, S. B. (2006). Children as citizens. Journal of Community Practice, 14, 11–30. Hamilton, S. F, Hamilton, M. A., & Pittman, K. J. (2004). Principles for youth development. In S. F. Hamilton & M. A. Hamilton (Eds.), The youth development handbook: Coming of age in American communities (pp. 3–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Florence, Italy: UNICEF International Child Development Centre. Retrieved from http://www.unicefirc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf Hawkins, J. D. (1997). Academic performance and school success: Sources and consequences. In R. P. Weissberg, T. P. Gullota, R. L. Hampton, B. A. Ryan, & G. R. Adams (Eds.), Healthy children 2010: Enhancing children’s wellness. (Issues in children’s and families’ lives series, Vol. 8, pp. 278–304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jane Addams College of Social Work. (n.d.). Field instruction in MSW program. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/ jaddams/college/field/field_instruction_MSW.html Jelicic, H., Bobek, D. L., Phelps, E., Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2007). Using positive youth development to predict contribution and risk behaviors in early adolescence: Findings from the first two waves of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(3), 263–273. Jennings, L. B., Parra-Medina, D. M., Hilfinger Messias, D. K., & McLouglin, K. (2006). Toward a critical social theory of youth empowerment. Journal of Community Practice, 14, 31–55. Kielsmeier, J. C., Scales, P. C., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Neal, M. (2004). Preliminary findings: Community service and
356–•–VIII. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES service-learning in public schools. In Growing to greatness 2004: The state of service-learning project (pp. 6–11). St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council. Krovetz, M. (1999). Fostering resiliency: Expecting all youths to use their minds and hearts well. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Lantieri, L. (1999). Hooked on altruism: developing social responsibility in at-risk youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 8, 83–87. Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McKay, C. (2010). Critical service-learning: A school social work intervention. Children and Schools, 32, 5–13. McKay, C., & Johnson, A. (2010). Service-learning: An example of multilevel school social work practice. School Social Work Journal, 35(1), 21–36. Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: How student voice in service-learning develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 154–169. Nedwek, B. P. (1987). Political socialization and policy evaluation: The case of youth employment and training program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10(1), 35–42.
Pittman, K. J., Irby, M., & Ferber, T. (2001). Unfinished business: Further reflections on a decade of promoting youth development. In P. L. Benson & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth development: Visions, realities and challenges. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Roscigno, V., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Crowley, M. (2006). Education and the inequalities of place. Social Forces, 84(4), 2121–2145. Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94–111. Scales, P. C., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2004). Community service and service-learning in U.S. public schools, 2004: Findings from a national survey. St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council. Spring, K., Grimm, R., & Dietz, N. (2008). Introduction. In K. Spring, R. Grimm, & N. Dietz, Community service and service-learning in America’s schools, 2008. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Policy Development.
PART IX INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
48 DIALECTICS OF POWER AND RESISTANCE Service-Learning in International Contexts
I
SHENILA KHOJA-MOOLJI
SHIRIN KARSAN
Teachers College, Columbia University
Drexel University
n recent decades, we have observed a rise in the adoption of service-learning as a philosophy, pedagogy, and programmatic approach in the United States, especially in the context of institutions of higher education. The projects have increasingly adopted an international scope, as it is believed that interaction with people of various cultural, socioeconomic, racial, and religious backgrounds promotes mutual understanding, awareness, and a concern for social justice. Significantly, the students in these contexts are positioned as “agents of social change” who can make meaningful contributions to “less privileged” communities through acts of service. Informed by Foucauldian concern with power and resistance, in this chapter we foreground relations of power to raise the possibility that international service-learning projects may reproduce unequal relations of power between Western service providers (students) and the recipients of these services in the global South. We argue that service projects can inadvertently construct the recipients as incapable, infant “others” in need of intervention by Western knowledges and experts. We first direct our attention to the fluid and shifting operation of power. Following Michel Foucault, we note that power is not something to be possessed or acquired but is already present and diffused across institutions in society and in the relationships between students and host communities. We draw examples from Drexel University’s international service-learning program, weServe, to explicate the mundane ways in which power operates. Here, we attend to the everyday knowledges and practices that may reinforce relations of dominance. At the same time,
however, Foucault’s work directs us to see power and resistance as mutually constitutive. We, therefore, highlight some instances of resistance during weServe, where the host communities employed what Michel de Certeau (1984) calls tactics to redirect the objectives of the program. Herein, we show the dialectics of power and resistance, and operationalize these concepts as analytical tools. Doing so enhances our understanding of the complicated relationships between students and host communities in service contexts. Next, we focus on the increasingly popular positioning of service volunteers as agents of social change and make visible its situatedness within the neoliberal discourse of citizenship, which conceptualizes the individual as opposed to the collective as the source of change. We argue that this framing can be counterproductive as it directs students to see themselves as saviors or problem solvers in relation to the service recipients, exaggerates their contributions to the host communities, and constructs a narrowly defined vision of social change. Significantly, it deprioritizes the ways in which the local communities may already be engaged in addressing their own issues. In addition, we note that this framing also puts the burden of development on the individuals in the global South as opposed to undertaking a deeper analysis of how development at the local level is linked with national, international, and transnational processes, including political economies, consumption patterns, and trade relations as well as cultural norms and values. Instead of positioning individuals as the primary agents of social change, we contend that an analysis 359
360–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
of the structural conditions in the global South and its interconnectedness with the global North should be undertaken to develop a more complicated understanding of social problems and solutions. In highlighting the relations of power and their operation, this chapter is situated within the tradition of critical service-learning, which advocates for an examination of the structural conditions that undergird social problems. We contribute to this literature by viewing service projects as sites where power and resistance intersect in multiple, overlapping, and sometimes contradictory ways. Drawing on Marianna Papastephanou’s (2012) work, we conclude with an appeal to reconceptualize service-learning as an ethic of responsibility toward the self and others.
Drexel University’s weServe The weServe “Service through Innovation” program was established at Drexel University in 2009 to develop service-based partnerships, both in the local Philadelphia region as well as globally. Focusing primarily on students engaged in the academic discipline of biomedical engineering, the mission of the program is to promote experiential learning and leadership development through firsthand understanding of health-care needs and disparities and addressing such needs through innovative and collaborative service projects. Many partnerships have been developed within the greater Philadelphia region that seek to serve underrepresented and underserved communities as well as populations with special needs and limited resources. At the international level, the program has established collaborations with several hospitals in The Gambia and Mozambique. In these two countries, weServe students are immersed in the host communities, where they join forces with patients and their caregivers for anywhere between six weeks to six months to embark on various projects. The intention of the program has been to ensure that service projects are mutually beneficial to the students as well as the host communities, although this can be difficult to ascertain (see Blouin & Perry, 2009; Lewis, 2004). Over the past few years, weServe has grown significantly, with approximately 145 students and 18 faculty members participating in it. While the program has been successful, it is critical to analyze and interrogate the ways in which it operates to promote future development.
Dialectics of Power and Resistance Service-learning programs as educational endeavors exercise power in myriad ways. Foucault (1977, 1978) conceptualizes power not as something to be acquired or possessed but as already present and diffused across institutions in
society. This conceptualization of power as diffusive directs us to inquire into the operation of even the smallest of things, methods, or knowledges—the everyday practices—in and through which power is exercised. Foucault (1977) has termed his method of analyzing power, “microphysics” (p. 149), which entails the study of the penetration and productivity of power at the minutest of levels, focusing on behaviors of individuals. A study of power, therefore, entails the study of the micro ways in which subjects are disciplined. To investigate the operation of power in service-learning programs then, we have to look into the mundane and everyday processes, sites, and knowledges. One of the ways, for instance, in which educational institutions exercise power is by selecting the type of service to be rendered by the students. In the case of weServe, the establishment of the project in a health-related discipline dictates that the service be connected to biomedical engineering and interdisciplinary health-related fields, including health information technologies. Similarly, other higher education institutions might choose to sponsor service projects, keeping in mind the interests, abilities, and future needs of their own students. Seemingly innocuous, this practice underwrites the ability of these institutions to determine the areas of need for the host communities. They articulate the nature of the project, including its curriculum and service sites, and prescribe “best practices.” During such interactions, it is simplistic to assume that the interests of the weaker party always frame the discourse. Highlighting such unequal power dynamics between various cultural entities, Fiske (1993) notes, Cross-cultural communication which is initiated and directed by the more powerful of . . . two cultures (for power difference is always part of the cultural differences) always runs the risk of reducing the weaker to the canvas upon which the stronger represents itself and its power. (p. 147)
We, thus, have to question the desire to engage across difference and inquire into whose interests are ultimately being served by the service projects. Foucault (1978) has argued that since power is diffusive, resistance to it must then also be diffused across the social system and incorporated into the everyday—“there is a plurality of resistances . . . just as the network of power relations ends by forming a dense web that passes through apparatuses and institutions, without being exactly localized in them, so too the swarm of points of resistance reverses social stratifications and individual unities” (pp. 95–96). Instances of resistance, where the host communities create oppositional meanings within a prescribed structure, give us a glimpse into the multiple ways in which power and resistance operate. A particular episode during a weServe project in one African country illustrates this well. The weServe program had received several vital signs monitors as donation from a Philadelphia-based hospital
48. Dialectics of Power and Resistance–•–361
for the benefit of its partners. The devices were to be installed at the partner hospitals in various regions across the country. Upon their arrival, however, the students tasked with this installation learned that the partner was reluctant to share the equipment with other hospitals and instead wanted to retain the monitors for its own future needs. Even though weServe envisioned an appropriate way for the machines to be used, the local partners resisted and used them in ways not proposed by the program. Herein, we see that power operates in more complicated ways than simply domination and control. It was exercised not only through the knowledges and materials that the weServe students brought to the host community but also by the villagers when they disagreed with the ways in which an external institution wanted to (re)distribute local resources. This demonstrates the agency of the villagers to create alternate pathways for themselves and, in doing so, destabilize power relations. They took from the outsiders—service providers from the United States in this case—what they could in the service of their own empowerment. French sociologist, de Certeau (1984), describes this as tactics. Tactics are minor points of resistances employed or enacted by the powerless, within the predetermined constraints of their everyday contexts, to resist their subjection (p. 37). The powerless take what they can from the ideologies, commodities, and spaces of dominant societies and deploy them in ways that they deem valuable for themselves. Tactics are, thus, “the art of the weak” (de Certeau, 1984). The emphasis here is on the relative freedom that individuals have to interpret and use that which they encounter in ways that are not envisioned by the writers of the structure. The dialectics of power and resistance in this particular weServe episode direct us to employ these theoretical concepts as analytical tools to understand the complicated, and sometimes contradictory, relations of dominance. It highlights for students that they can be made powerless in particular contexts and gives a glimpse into the vitality of host communities. Instead of being framed primarily as disempowered victims, the villagers demonstrated their acute understanding of the politics of service projects. Knowledges and ideologies that exercise power can thus also be taken up by the very individuals they seek to dominate for alternate ends. Foucault (1978) notes, We must make allowance for the complex and unstable process whereby discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling-block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy. Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it. [emphasis added] (p. 101)
Thus, power and resistance are shown to be present, enacted and experienced to different degrees, within specific contexts.
Programmatic Intervention At a programmatic level, we believe that it is critical to foreground discussions of power relations before and during service-learning projects. For instance, students should be able to identify the ways in which they exercise power in relation to the host communities, and vice versa. Specifically, they could “name the ways they are both like and unlike the individuals they work with within the service setting, and further how those similarities and differences impact their interaction at the service site and away from the service site” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 59). Keeping this in mind, students in the weServe program currently engage in preprogrammatic exercises where they reflect on their visible and invisible privileges. Experiential learning activities such as the Two Dollar Challenge, described further in the chapter, and classes to promote learning of the culture and histories of specific countries where students will be going to serve, are part of the orientation classes in preparation for the student’s learning experiences. Reflective discussions are based on notions of respect and humility, citing examples from Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot (2000) who focuses “on the way respect creates symmetry, empathy, and connections in all kinds of relationships, such as student and teacher, doctor and patient, commonly seen as unequal” (p. 9). Through these exercises, weServe hopes to make it possible for students to become cognizant of the many ways in which privilege is exercised in social relations. Etsuko Kinefuchi (2010) has noted that “the realization of potential for change should not be abstractly about societal hegemonic practices but should include reflexivity about our own limited world views and privileges and how they situate us differently and often unequally in relation to each other” (p. 79). This awareness can engender a critical consciousness and destabilize the assumption that the host community has a problem and the students are the problem solvers (Artz, 2001). It can also be the first step in addressing what Andrea Clark (2010) has identified as the “missionary ideological approach” (p. 68) to service, where “one group tries to impose its ideas on another group without examining the group’s traditions, beliefs, and needs” (pp. 68–69).
The Desiring Social Change Agents Inquiring and interrogating into the desires and pleasures that motivate students and institutions to engage in service opportunities is useful as it provides insights into the assumptions informing the material practices of service programs. It has been found that students often participate in such opportunities to enhance their academic and professional careers, or develop skills such as leadership, independence, and intercultural understanding (see Crabtree, 2008; Mitchell, 2008). In addition, students are increasingly selecting international service assignments
362–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
out of a desire to produce change in the global South. In fact, service-learning institutions often market and promote their engagements by positioning students as agents of social change and highlighting the economic, cultural, and social disparities in the global South. We argue that the framing of students as agents of social change can be counterproductive because it directs students to see themselves as saviors or problem solvers, exaggerates their contributions to the host communities, and constructs a narrowly defined vision of social change. Significantly, it de-prioritizes the ways in which the local communities may already be engaged in addressing their own issues. We see the discourse of neoliberal citizenship at work in the production of the trope of “change agent.” Neoliberalism can be understood as particular economic and political stances that center rational individuals capable of making decisions to enhance their own wellbeing. Neoliberal economic and political formations often prioritize free market relations and advocate limited intervention by the state. As nation-states move toward a neoliberal order, they demand particular kinds of citizens who have the capabilities and skills of surviving in this new social order (see Khoja-Moolji, 2014). Neoliberal market sensibilities then take on dominance in our imaginaries, and configure and structure social aspects of our lives as well, including the ways in which we educate ourselves. Sangeeta Kamat (2004) argues that in this context, a new citizen culture has to be developed in which “citizens have to forego their sense of entitlement and have to acquire an entrepreneurial identity that derives from liberal values of independence and autonomy” (p. 164). Citizens are individualized; they are expected to work for their own economic and social development and make limited claims on the state (Ong, 2006). In this context, where the individual is posited as “both the problem and the solution” (Kamat, 2004, p. 169), it is not surprising to see the framing of students as agents of social change. Students are expected to work on improving themselves through different activities, as well as create change for others. The change, however, is enacted through individualized transformations and actions. Instead of exploring the structural issues that lead to inequality in the global South, or the complicity of the global North in it, the focus is directed at enhancing individual citizens’ capabilities, through activities such as tutoring services, and on localized projects, such as cleaning up parks, building libraries, and improving technological access. Clearly, such service-learning opportunities are important; what we are emphasizing here, however, is that this framing makes service-learning apolitical and allows structural inequality to recede into the background. Achieving social justice and solving social problems then becomes an individualized activity and the onus is placed on the individual citizen. Foucault’s (1977) work directs us to view this individualizing as a technique of power. It delinks the individual from the system, and allows collectivities to be broken up
into bodies, which can then be analyzed and manipulated (Foucault, 1977, p. 136). Lemke (2010) sees this as neoliberal rationality, The strategy of rendering individual subjects ‘responsible’ (and also collectives, such as families, associations, etc.) entails shifting the responsibility for social risks such as illness, unemployment, poverty, etc., and for life in society into the domain for which the individual is responsible and transforming it into a problem of ‘self-care’ . . . This strategy can be deployed in all sorts of areas and leads to areas of social responsibility becoming a matter of personal provisions. (p. 201)
Thus, in the context of global structural disparities, it is simplistic to portray and position students or host communities as the “agents of change.” This trope functions to make the communities in the global South more vulnerable by holding them responsible for their own conditions. Instead, it may be more beneficial for students to engage in an assessment of how structural conditions lead to disparities and locate the interconnections between the global North and global South. While difficult, these conversations are a significant element of critical service-learning.
Programmatic Intervention The weServe program embarked on a small experiential exercise, called the Two Dollar Challenge, the structure of which was inspired by a program initiated at the Mary Washington University (twodollarchallenge.org), to begin conversations around poverty in the United States and selected countries in the African continent. The objective of the exercise was to contextualize the local service projects in a wider analysis of the politics of poverty and health care, and understand the myriad ways in which African economies were intricately linked to Western economies. Students were asked to live on less than $2 a day for 3 days and build a shelter out of materials that they could find, while respecting the needs of the actual homeless people in the neighborhood. The program hoped to provide students with a glimpse into the disparities that exist even in their own backyard, Philadelphia (PA). Poverty then became not just a problem in the global South that needed attention by the global North. It was a concern that impacted people in particular situations and positions and across all contexts. Here, an intersectional analysis was introduced to show how poverty intersects with race, gender, age, and ability. Poverty was, thus, politicized. This exercise, at the onset of the service trip, helped to deflate the false sense of contribution that the students might have had and complicated their assumptions of what it meant to produce change. The weServe program is also focusing on diversifying its service engagements beyond the routine activities of tutoring and supporting individual hospitals. One such effort under consideration is partnering with local social
48. Dialectics of Power and Resistance–•–363
justice organizations that seek to identify and interrogate the effects of neoliberal economic and political policies in the global South.
Conclusion An underlying theme in this chapter has been an appeal for the decentering of the self. We have argued that by foregrounding power relations and interrogating our desires to produce social change, we may be able to subordinate the self for the benefit of collectivities. Like Papastephanou (2012), we also propose a refashioning of the self for supra-individual purposes. Decentering or subordinating the self does not mean removing individual considerations from the process of social change; instead, it means that the self is viewed in relation to others.
References and Further Readings Artz, L. (2001). Critical ethnography for communication studies: Dialogue and social justice in service learning. The Southern Communication Journal, 66(3), 239–250. Blouin. D. D., & Perry, E. M. (2009). Whom does service learning really serve? Community-based organizations’ perspectives on service learning. Teaching Sociology, 37(2), 120–135. Butin, D. W. (2003). Of what use is it? Multiple conceptualizations of service-learning within education. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1674–1692. Butin, D. W. (Ed.). (2005). Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Clark, A. Y. (2010). Why power matters in service-learning from youth development to cultural relevancy. In National Youth leadership Council, Growing to greatness 2010. The state of service-learning (pp. 68–75). St. Paul, MN: Author. Crabtree, R. (2008). Theoretical foundations for international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(1), 18–36. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Randall, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Deacon, R. (2005). Capacity-communication-power: Foucault on contemporary education. Perspectives in Education, 23(2), 73–83. Faulstick, B. (2013). From West Philly to East Africa: A student group with a fresh take on outreach [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://newsblog.drexel.edu/2013/01/21/ from-west-philly-to-east-africa-a-student-group-with-afresh-take-on-outreach/ Fiske, J. (1993). Act globally, think locally. In J. Fiske, Power plays, power works (pp. 147–161). London, UK: Verso. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punishment. The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
As opposed to service then, perhaps the ethic that should inform the interaction between students and communities, and vice versa, should be the ethic of responsibility to the self and others. Engendering a sense of responsibility toward others might mean reflecting on the ways in which one’s own everyday practices can reproduce relations of dominance. It would mean engaging in the difficult struggle of realizing the limits and politics of one’s own knowledge, social practices, and assumptions. We, thus, call for reconceptualizing service-learning as an orientation toward the self and others, as opposed to a one-time event. Along the same lines, we also believe that a more concerted effort should be undertaken to understand the material realities of communities—one’s own as well as where one undertakes service—as effects of relations of power. This, too, can engender political analysis of one’s own practices in relation to others.
Foucault, M. (1978). History of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder. Kamat, S. (2004). The privatization of public interest: Theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era. Review of International Political Economy, 11(1), 155–176. Khoja-Moolji, S. (2014). Producing neoliberal citizens: Critical reflections on human rights education in Pakistan. Gender and Education, 26(2), 103–118. Kinefuchi, E. (2010). Critical consciousness and critical servicelearning at the intersection of the personal and the structural. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 2, 77–93. Kotz, D. M. (2002). Globalization and neoliberalism. Rethinking Marxism, 12(2), 64–79. Kubala, J. (2011). Human rights. In N. Lesko & S. Talburt (Eds.), Keywords in youth studies: Tracing affects, movements, knowledges. New York, NY: Routledge. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2000). Respect: An exploration. New York, NY: Perseus Books. Lemke, T. (2010). The birth of bio-politics: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the College de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30, 190–207. Lewis, T. (2004). Service learning for social change? Lessons from a liberal arts college. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 94–108. Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging in the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Papastephanou, M. (2012). Thinking differently about cosmopolitanism: Theory, eccentricity, and the globalized world (Interventions: Education, philosophy, and culture). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
364–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations of the caring self. Albany: State University of New York Press. Smith, A. (2009). Wealth of nations. Blacksburg, VA: Thrifty Books.
weServe Program at Drexel University. (n.d.). weServe. Retrieved from http://www.drexel.edu/about/civicengagement/we-serve Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
49 THE AFFECTIVE-COGNITIVE MODEL OF REFLECTION International Service-Learning in Community Development ANTOINETTE R. SMITH-TOLKEN AND JACOB M. J. DU PLESSIS Stellenbosch University
T
he theory and practice of this reflection model is situated within the context of international education and international service-learning from the perspective of a university that hosts foreign students. From 2005 to 2009, Stellenbosch University in South Africa offered a study-abroad certificate program, consisting of three courses, to students from abroad (see Appendix A). It was clear from the outset that foreign students in the community development course who were placed for service at community-based organizations faced particular constraints and challenges. These were related to or resulted from cultural differences, communication and language barriers, and unrealistic and often naive expectations of their own role during their service. The students relied strongly on prior and familiar experiences and applied them in a learning context that was profoundly different from their own. These constraints and challenges, and in particular the experience of dissonance, doubt, and confusion, can be more effectively revealed and systematically addressed through structured reflection that gauges both affective and cognitive processing of their experiences. The reflection model used in the Service-Learning in Community Development (SLCD) course was designed and applied to allow for and give
prominence to the inclusion and description of emotion in the structured reflection activities of the course. The authors termed this adapted reflection model the affectivecognitive model of reflection (A-C model). This chapter provides an overview of service-learning literature that highlights the importance of reflection in learning. Recent studies that bring to the foreground the centrality of emotions in reflective practice and learning are reviewed. This is followed by a description of the A-C model of reflection, which is based on the critical incident-type journal (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999) and the DEAL (describeexamine-articulate learning) model of critical reflection (Ash & Clayton, 2004, 2009; Ash, Clayton, & Atkinson, 2005), and its integration and implementation in the syllabus. In 2009, the authors (both as teachers in the course and researchers) assessed the impact of the A-C model on learning in a study over two courses, SLCD 2009 (1) and SLCD 2009 (2), offered respectively in the first and second semester of the 2009 academic year. The research process is described, followed by the analysis and findings. A conceptual framework of cognitive processes where emotions play a significant role is presented as an outcome of the research. The authors conclude by sharing insights that were developed while implementing and studying this model of reflection.
365
366–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Review of Literature Reflection in Service-Learning This review considers the philosophical foundation of service-learning and reflection and how reflection was defined and conceptualized over time as the body of theoretical knowledge on service-learning expanded and matured. The Philosophical Foundation of Service-Learning and Reflection According to Robert Bringle and Julie Hatcher (1999), John Dewey contributed to the philosophical foundation of service-learning and reflection and in particular the role that reflection plays in the learning process of linking theory and practice (experience). Dewey’s educational philosophy provided principles, values, and a moral basis of how and what education was to become. His belief that education should lead to personal growth, contribute to humane conditions, and engage citizens in association with each other is a key characteristic of his educational philosophy (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999). Janet Eyler (2002) alludes to Dewey, who saw the link between the learning process and democratic citizenship of students when they are immersed in worthwhile experiences that stimulate their interest and further inquiry. Peter Felten and Patti Clayton (2011) affirm Dewey’s work as foundational for the advancement of service-learning and reflective practice, alongside the contributions of Robert Sigmon (1979) who helped to establish and formalize the pedagogy and Thomas Ehrlich (1996) who provided a general framework for service-learning. From a South African perspective, Lesley Le Grange (2007) critiques the philosophical thought of Dewey as the only foundation for service-learning and reflection. He argues that “[t]he notion ‘in imitation of’ opens up endless possibilities for enriching service-learning ‘theoretically,’ linking service-learning to Deweyian thought . . .” and contends that Dewey’s view is only one of the possible philosophical and theoretical foundations. It opens up other possibilities such as “in imitation of ” “ . . . servicelearning after Dewey, service-learning after Foucault, service-learning after Rorty, service-learning after Nussbaum, and on—the possibilities are infinite” (p. 6). Despite this critique, it is fair to acknowledge Dewey’s contribution to the conceptualization of reflection in service-learning, which also gave impetus to the development of the experiential learning cycle by David Kolb (1984) and his predecessors Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget's learning models, where reflection features as a core component. Especially noted is Dewey’s valuing of perplexity, which Kolb sees as the starting point of thinking and reflection that occurs when new out-of-classroom experiences create dissonance, doubt, and confusion.
Demand for the solution of a perplexity then becomes the steadying and guiding factor in the entire process of reflection (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Correia & Bleicher, 2008).
Conceptualization of Service-Learning and Reflection Since reflection is such an integral part of servicelearning, it is also important to consider more recent conceptualizations of service-learning and how these in turn impact on how reflection is viewed and defined. Factors such as the advancement of scholarship and the foregrounding of community engagement in debates and thinking about the public role of higher education institutions in the 21st century have become more prominent. As a result of these factors, a few subtle but significant changes can be observed in more recent definitions of service-learning and subsequently reflection. Bringle and Clayton (2012), for example, adapted a long-standing definition of service-learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996), and then expanded on the meanings reflective of more current thinking, by stating that service-learning is a course or competency-based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in mutually identified service activities that benefit the community, and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility. (p. 105)
Bringle and Clayton (2012) further state that other definitions do not delimit service-learning to curricular gains as some emphasize the roles of faculty and community members in the process, while others make social justice or systems change an explicit objective. Felten and Clayton (2011) echo this view. They state that as the field of service-learning has matured, the range of its definitions has converged on several core characteristics: servicelearning experiences advance both learning goals (academic and civic) and community processes. This is possible if collaboration among participants (students, faculty, community members, community organizations, and educational institutions) is inclusive and of a reciprocal nature, resulting in meaningful collaboration to fulfill shared objectives and building capacity among all partners. A central feature in collaborative partnerships is reciprocity that creates a strong connection between the academic context and public concerns. Critical reflection in particular enables and reinforces this linkage and is the component of service-learning that generates, deepens, and documents learning (Ash & Clayton, 2009; Felten & Clayton, 2011). Service-learning experiences also include critical reflection and assessment processes that are purposefully designed and facilitated to produce and document meaningful learning and service outcomes. Clayton, Bringle,
49. The Affective-Cognitive Model of Reflection–•–367
and Hatcher (2013) note that reflection provides a vehicle through which service and associated activities (e.g., project planning and teamwork) can be analyzed, interpreted, and improved. If well designed and rigorously implemented, reflection is the component of the learning process that generates meaning, new questions, and enhanced understanding of practice. This applies not only to students but also to any participants in a service-learning setting who see themselves as co-learners. Critical reflection may involve feedback and opportunities for revision and again should be inclusive of all participants. Sarah Ash and Patti Clayton (2009) define critical reflection and provide principles of good practice in relation to their DEAL model of critical reflection. A precondition of any significant and meaningful learning depends on how well, intentionally, strategically, or purposefully, the reflection process is designed and aligned with learning goals and objectives and the assessment thereof. Another precondition would be to view reflection as a process of metacognition that functions to improve the quality of thinking and action and the relationship between them, if applied learning pedagogies are to be maximized as learning opportunities.
The Role of Emotion in Learning and Reflection Felten, Leigh Gilchrist, and Alexa Darby (2006) explored emerging research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience and revealed the central role of emotion throughout the thinking and learning process. They are critical of how inattention to emotion has molded servicelearning research and practice and how the rationalist approach to reflection remains dominant throughout the research literature on service-learning. The general conclusion they draw from service-learning literature over the past 20 years is that it signifies an underestimation of the role of emotion in reflection and learning. The same authors contend that although Kolb (1984) acknowledged that emotion plays a role in the learning process in the sense that it involves the complete person in terms of “thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving,” his learning cycle also underplays emotion as an integral part of reflection. Felten et al. (2006) in particular emphasize that “Once again, emotion is merely the trigger for the intellectual work of reflection” and Kolb’s “approach to learning styles and the learning process, fails to recognize emotion as a valid and persistent aspect of the reflective process” (p. 40). Through their further review of research literature on reflection in service-learning, such as Eyler and Dwight Giles (1999), Hatcher and Bringle (1997), Hatcher, Bringle, and Richard Muthiah (2004) and also the leading guides to service-learning course construction (e.g., Heffernan, 2001; Howard, 2001), it is fair to conclude that emotions are merely hinted at and never addressed as an integral part of the reflection process in the current literature.
Despite agreement among practitioners that reflection is the essential link between the community experience and academic learning (Correia & Bleicher, 2008; Eyler, 2002), the role of emotions in the reflection and learning literature is a relatively unexplored topic (Felten, Gilchrist, & Darby, 2006). This is recognized by Felten and Clayton (2011) who write that “[i]n service-learning, students often come face-to-face with troubling social realities, making connections between emotion and learning, a particular salient consideration [emphasis added] for this pedagogy” (p. 81). Despite the existence of many models and frameworks of reflection, none of them include emotion as a significant or central component of reflection. Service-learning practitioner scholars have begun to explore the positive roles emotion can play in learning, emphasizing how the emotional dimensions of experience can contribute to developmental outcomes, including enhanced motivation, empathy, and persistence. Mary H. Immordino-Yang and Antonio Damasio (2007) also contend that emotions in reflection are mostly underplayed and unrecognized, and the significance of emotions as central to reflection have not yet found their way into service-learning practice. Felten et al. (2006) present a description of “effective reflection” in service-learning and define this as “a process involving the interplay of emotion and cognition in which people (students, teachers and community partners) intentionally connect service experiences with academic learning objectives” (p. 42) and argue further that educators would limit the potential for real academic learning if they ignore existing emotions that shape learning. Manuel Correia and Robert Bleicher (2008) agree with Felten et al. but caution that it “ . . . is necessary to ensure that student reflections focus on both emotion and thinking and that emotion-based reflections are leveraged on behalf of thinking reflections” (p. 42). In response, Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007), on linking emotion with reason, argue that acknowledging the pervasive role of feelings in the processes of reason would not suggest that reason is of lesser importance than feelings, but that it presents opportunities for enhancing their positive effects and reducing their potential harm. Felten et al. (2006) further highlight the continual interplay of reason and emotion as an opportunity to develop more sophisticated and more effective theoretical models for research and practice in service-learning, and argue that it is necessary to refine the ideas around the reflective learning process to allow emotion to be present throughout the reflective process. Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007) affirm the link between emotion and cognition. These researchers argue that the aspects of cognition that are most highlighted in education (including learning, attention, memory, decision making, motivation, and social functioning) are both profoundly affected by emotion and subsumed by processes of emotion. They also argue that the overlap of emotion and cognition “represents the domain of emotional thought.
368–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Emotional thought can be conscious or nonconscious and is the means by which bodily sensations come into our conscious awareness” (p. 8). According to ImmordinoYang and Damasio (2007), high reasoning or rational thinking constitutes merely a small part of emotional thought and therefore also highlights the importance of emotions as they relate to the cognitive. The implication for teaching is evident and affirmed when ImmordinoYang and Damasio argue that if educators minimize the emotional aspects of their academic curricula and emphasize the rational domain of learning, they might encourage students to develop the sorts of knowledge that are disconnected from real-world situations. It is in the context of the sample of literature presented here and linked to the experiences of students in a particular service-learning course in community development that the authors conducted a study embedded in a grounded theory approach (a theory generating methodology), to study the impact of the affective-cognitive reflection model.
Integrating the Affective-Cognitive Model Into the Course Syllabus Contextual Background of the Certificate Program Several challenges presented themselves in terms of students from abroad working and learning in a foreign context. Some observations of the teachers over time revealed insights that influenced the structuring of the program and syllabus (Appendix A). Initially students had idealistic and unrealistic intentions or motivations for service, while often displaying self-centeredness and an individualistic “me” focus. English-speaking students were confronted with indigenous languages (Xhosa and Afrikaans), which were a major barrier to communication. Students were furthermore challenged by cultural differences, which often gave rise to “tough situations.” This meant that students required a space in which to express their feelings and process experiences as a kind of “debriefing.” Students exhibited a strong reliance on prior experiences as volunteers in non-African contexts, having to “unlearn” previous knowledge or rational thinking, attitudes, and ways of doing. Students had to “learn” an alternative (often totally opposite) theoretical approach (“community development” theory), which emphasized different (“unfamiliar”) values, principles, and philosophies. The program therefore included two electives, namely a South African studies course and an indigenous language course to enable students to better understand the context in which they work and learn. It was found that students’ entry into communities was facilitated by their understanding of the context, and their basic knowledge of the indigenous language enhanced their communication with community members.
The A-C Model The A-C model of reflection used in the SLCD courses in 2009 was based on the critical incident-type journal (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999) and the DEAL model of critical reflection (Ash & Clayton, 2004, 2009; Ash et al., 2005). This model adapts the DEAL model by qualifying the describing of an experience according to two criteria. The first is to highlight a critical incident (or incidents, if preferred) which resulted in intense feelings and also served as a particular moment of insight and deeper learning. The second is a “thick description” of the chosen incident. The students were instructed to outline the actions, interactions between and with others, their interpretation of the interactions and their responses to it, including their feelings and emotional responses experienced as a result of the critical incident. Thomas Schwandt (2001, as cited by Ponterotto, 2006), states: “[T]o thickly describe social action is actually to begin to interpret it [by] recording the circumstances, meanings, intentions, strategies, motivations, and so on that characterize a particular episode” (p. 540). The “examine” component represents a “stepping back” from the emotions and analyzing the described experience cognitively. When “articulating learning,” students are prompted to relate to the impact on their personal growth, academic content of the course and how it will impact on future actions. The distinct difference between the A-C model and other known models of reflection is that students are specifically and intentionally prompted to reflect on their feelings after their experience in a community setting. The experience becomes the text to which they relate in the same way as readers relate to text, namely text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections (Correia & Bleicher, 2008). Analogously in the service-learning experience, connections are made to similar previous servicelearning or community experiences, experiences that impacted on students personally, and experiences and observations of the world around them. Students make connections through the analysis of their feelings to the self, others, and the world.
Integrating the Affective-Cognitive Model in the SLCD Syllabus The A-C model of reflection was introduced to students during the orientation sessions and much coaching was required during the first weeks of the course to ensure that students understood the requirements of this framework and the rationale of reflection. It was important that students followed the instructions, which was emphasized during the coaching to ensure that the envisaged learning outcomes and overall academic objectives to service experiences were achieved. In our experience, and having taught various service-learning courses over the years,
49. The Affective-Cognitive Model of Reflection–•–369
giving feedback (both individually and during group discussions sessions) on journal writing and reflection and providing a conceptual understanding of service-learning pedagogy are important tasks during the first weeks of any service-learning course. The syllabus ran over a period of 14 weeks in a semester. During the first three weeks, students were familiarized with the theoretical concepts and principles of the subject of community development. Thereafter, for a 10-week period, students completed 60 hours of community service at an agency that was selected according to students’ academic field of study and the needs of the agency. Weekly activities consisted of a cycle of a theory class, doing community service, writing a reflection, and discussing the reflections during a reflection class at the end of the week (Appendix A). Each weekly journal had to cover a specific theme of the course. The instructions to students took the form of two generic questions and specific instructions about the theme for the week (see Appendix B for the generic questions and a table of each week’s instruction). In the first question, students were guided to reflect on the affective level by describing their emotions during a particular (critical) incident or experience. Their reflections were guided by a set of possible emotions with which they could identify (see Table 49.1). By identifying their emotions, students became aware of their own perceptions, attitudes, and the impact of prior experiences. In question two, students were guided to step back from their experiences and analyze them cognitively by viewing them through a theoretical lens, based on assigned course readings. Through doing this, students developed new perspectives and understanding, which formed the basis for experimenting with problem solving in the community setting. Initially they found it challenging to focus deliberately on their emotions. They tended to report on what happened during the experience, instead of reflecting on the learning process. These reflective journals were
submitted weekly through the assignment tool of the Webbased course management system WebCT. This method of submission gave students enough time to write the journals and submit them before the discussion class. It also ensured confidentiality and secured storing of material. It is important to note that different kinds of assessments are required from students during the course, such as activity proposals and implementation plans, an organizational and community profile, and a research component. However, for the purposes of this study and specifically to illustrate the A-C model, reference was only made to the written reflection journals. The journals were used for generating data and analyzing the impact of this reflection model. The written reflections provided a monitoring tool to the module facilitators and eventually became central to analyzing and developing the reflection model. The strongest determinant for researching the impact of emotions on student learning was that emotions had not been researched in service-learning practice. The particular module in community development outlined in the earlier section presented such an opportunity. In the report-back on the research, emotional and affective concepts are used intermittently to refer to noncognitive content.
Research Process and Analysis The A-C model of reflection was implemented over a period of five years. This study reports on the analysis of the two semester courses presented in 2009 as the research sample. There were 24 students in the first semester (2009–1) and 15 students in the second semester (2009–2). The reason for selecting the specific year, 2009, was that the model had been refined and was well-developed at that particular time. Journals were selected from only those students who received the best grades in class and thus indicated a high
Anger
Fear
Guilt
Annoyed Frustrated Appalled
Scared Apprehensive
Feeling uneasy about breaking some law or rule Likely having awareness of how your behavior affected someone else
Shame
Sadness
Anxiety
Embarrassed Humiliated
Down Rejected
Usually a state of tension or worry due to uncertainty about a future occurrence
Delight
Achievement
Confidence
Contented Pleased
Successful
Relaxed and certain about your actions
Table 49.1
Range of Possible Emotions
370–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
compliance to instructions and a demonstration of learning that occurred during experiences—which simultaneously provided purposive data for the inquiry. Thick descriptions (described earlier) and demonstrations of learning were determining variables for inclusion. Through a qualitative, interpretive research approach, the journals were analyzed using grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). A constructivist approach was taken in the analysis, searching for underlying meanings in the text (Charmaz, 2006). Purposive sampling was part of this methodology and coding text was done through constant comparison throughout the analysis, a critical technique in grounded theory methodology (Boeije, 2002). The guiding research question was “What emotions (affective responses) enhance or hinder learning in an experiential (service) learning setting?” The analyses started with coding the reflective journals line-by-line and comparing data with data from one student and data from different students. Open codes were first developed, which were then conflated into focused codes, which were further conflated into categories. Three types of categories emerged, namely affective, cognitive, and categories related to the connections students made to the self, others, and the world. Each category had attributes, such as positive or negative, and also had different settings in which they occurred, including situations where students observe, act, interact, and perform intricate cognitive processes. The relation between the affective and cognitive processes were then explored and were finally developed into themes that became a conceptual framework of how emotions form an integral part throughout the process of reflection. Not all the students’ journals were analyzed as the process became “saturated,” meaning that no new categories emerged (Boeije, 2002). The three types of categories that emerged resonate with Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007), who state that there are three processes linked to emotion and cognition, namely processes related to the body, emotional thought, and high reason or rational thought. These processes inform and impact on one another.
Findings Ten distinct cognitive processes in which emotions played a significant role were identified in the study. Table 49.2 gives an outline of the identified processes, a description of the meaning of each process, as well as a sample quote from a student as illustration of each process. Through the analysis of how the processes link together, it was found that they can happen at any time during an experience, but in most cases students would respond emotionally first and then work through the episode cognitively. For example, positive anticipation is linked to the attribute of enjoyment, interest, and career relevance when cognitive processing occurs. Negative anticipation
is followed by apprehension to get involved in the experience at all. In some instances, adverse emotion could spark a positive response and become the driver of exploring new opportunities, creative thinking, using strengths like personal skills and prior or tacit knowledge, and applying academic knowledge.
Framework for Understanding Emotions During Reflection In Figure 49.1, the processes are depicted as a cascade of levels to illustrate the way they flow into each other and at the same time embed the whole process. The processes that showed strong relation were grouped together to form a particular level of emotion and cognition. The processes are integrated with elements of emotion and cognition and can influence one another in any direction. The first three levels are more emotionally dominant processes and the last two are more cognitively dominant. During an experience, students move from feelings of anticipation and expectation (more emotionally dominant) to reactions to or interpretations of what really occurred. The way they process the incident influences their motivation or achievement of the set goals and their problemsolving ability (more cognitively dominant). When emotions are part of the learning process, it strengthens the cognitive processes. It was found that during experiences and across different experiences over time, students develop a more coherent integration of the processes in their reflection. The study provided some valuable insights about this integration of the processes where emotions have a significant impact. Emotions have different effects on thinking, doing, and learning. When constructive, emotions enhance motivation and critical thinking about a situation, followed by strategy and action. Positive feelings may be the result of kindness shown, feeling part of something, or expectations that have been met. When emotions are too intense, they cloud thinking and need to be identified and contained first, before a response of positive action can take place. Overreactions are critically analyzed by students and often lead to personal growth when they understand their emotions. Emotions are processed with more ease and students rely more on course content to guide their thoughts in reflection. If critical thinking is applied, solutions become more creative and are based on sound arguments using course content, which results in higher motivation for learning and service. A sense of belonging and a role identity forms part of the students’ emotional functioning in the community setting. Uncertainty about this role seems to produce more affective-related responses, while confidence and critical thinking deepen when a sense of belonging becomes stronger. Perplexity resulting from an experience becomes a driver for the search for knowledge to develop competency
49. The Affective-Cognitive Model of Reflection–•–371
Process
Description of emotion
Student words
Anticipation
Thoughts of picturing/forecasting of an experience that is to take place and feeling anxious or excited
I was anxious, having just arrived in the country a few days ago.
Expectations
Envisaging and looking forward to what should happen in a particular situation
The entire time I was sitting there I was so excited, because I was placed at a site that really interested me and would benefit me.
Motivation
The force that drives a person to put in more effort in their experience
As I sat feeling stupid for not knowing what to do, I realized this was it: I needed to seize the moment.
Disappointment
When something that was expected did not happen
I was angry and sad that my placement was changed, because working with children in the context of HIV seemed so perfect.
Problem solving
Finding answers to tough questions and solutions to challenges
It also made me realize that I cannot change anyone’s life for them, the change has to come from the people. Just as we learned in class, a change agent cannot force the community to change, it has to come from within in order for the change to be sustainable.
Perplexity
Feelings of incapability to understand or handle situations
I felt desperately sad for the patient, anxious for his health and chances of survival, and frustrated with the clinic, and the government, and even myself a little bit for being unable to help him in any significant way.
Achievement
When a set goal is reached or partially reached
I felt a sense of achievement as I listened to him talk because I was learning about his perspective.
Decision making
Choosing one option above the other or using opportunities that comes along
I think it is important to take my emotions out of the equation every once in a while to see how others might view the situation, but ultimately for me I think it is important to have emotions involved in decision making, because how else can we truly get to know and understand others and their situations?
Interpretation
Giving meaning to observations, actions and interactions; it might evolve as perceptions/values/beliefs.
So I adapted. The situation called for a new plan, so with my partner, we created one.
Identity formation
To experience a strong sense of belonging
Knowing and actually having felt what (the organization) is about, makes me want to project that feeling, integrate it in my own life and allow myself to be an actual part of the children’s and staff’s life.
Table 49.2
Framework of Cognitive Processes Where Emotions Play a Significant Role
to overcome the inability to respond to situations in the community. Intense emotional reactions, however, cloud the ability to find sources of information that will serve to overcome problems. In decision making, students depend on both cognitive and affective thinking. When moral issues surface and students need to make value judgments, emotion is integrated into interpretation and critical thinking. In the final journal where students reflected
on journaling, the role of emotions in reflection was confirmed. The following two quotations are examples of how students reflect on the process of reflection in their learning process. Example 1: I always enjoyed the first questions in the journaling because they gave me the opportunity to break down everything I had been feeling and experiencing. Once I read
372–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Anticipation/Expectation
Reactionary/Interpretive
Motivational/Achievement
Moral/Decision Making/Choice
at my site and I would actually get excited to journal about it because it was an experience that I wanted to share; especially when after creating a contingency plan, things went smoothly! Also, by writing about what I had done and applying the theory, I was forced to think critically about what I had experienced and make those connections between theory and practice.
From these two quotations, it is evident that students valued reflection both on an emotional and cognitive level.
Conclusion Integrated in critical thinking/Identity
Figure 49.1 Conceptual Framework of Cascading Cognitive and Emotional Processes During Reflection
back my journals each week, I felt better about our work and also understood better what I was going through. The second part of the journals forced me to step back from my experience and feelings and apply to theory objectively. This experience has made me stronger at analyzing and applying material. Example 2: On the whole, I think the journaling process was worthwhile. There were times when something would happen
References and Further Readings Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137–154. Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1, 25–48. Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., & Atkinson, M. P. (2005). Integrating reflection and assessment to capture and improve student learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(2), 49–60. Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36, 391–409. Bringle, R. G., & Clayton, P. H. (2012). Civic education through service learning: What, how, and why? In L. McIlraith, A. Lyons, & R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 101–124). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
The affective-cognitive model of reflection assisted students in identifying and dealing with emotion during their service-learning experiences. Students were constructively guided to move between emotion and cognition during the experiential learning process. Learning took place when students were aware of their own emotions and they integrated this into their rational processes of cognitive thinking. If emotions were deliberately included in the thinking processes of students, students were more likely to achieve goals of personal growth, academic learning, and social responsibility. Students learned a great deal about themselves and their abilities, which gave them the confidence to grapple with theoretical constructs and their application in practice. Learning and emotion were found to be much more closely linked than previously perceived about this linkage. If more research evidence is produced to confirm this statement, recognizing emotion in learning might significantly impact on thinking about reflection in learning and service-learning educational theory.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in servicelearning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 179–185. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide to qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment. Vol. 2B (pp. 335–358). Arlington, VA: Stylus. Correia, M. G., & Bleicher, R. E. (2008). Making connections to teach reflection. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 41–49. Ehrlich, T. (1996). Foreword. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (p. xi). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning— Linking students and communities. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517–534. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where is the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
49. The Affective-Cognitive Model of Reflection–•–373 Felten, P., & Clayton, P. H. (2011). Service-learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 128, 77–84. doi:10 .1002/tl.470 Felten, P., Gilchrist, L. Z., & Darby, A. (2006). Emotion and learning: Feeling our way toward a new theory of reflection in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(2), 38–46. Gerda Bender, C. J., Daniels, P., Lazarus, J., Naude, L., & Sattar, K. (2006). Service-learning in the curriculum. A resource for higher education institutions. Pretoria, South Africa: The Council on Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/ HEQC_Service-Learning_Curriculum_Jun2006_0.pdf Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. College Teaching, 45(4), 153–158. Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing effective reflection: What matters to service-learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 39–46. Heffernan, K. (2001). Fundamentals of service-learning course construction. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Howard, J. (Ed.). (2001). Service-learning course design workbook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. R. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social
neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10. Jacoby, B., & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education. Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Le Grange, L. (2007). The “theoretical foundations” of community service-learning: From taproots to rhizomes. Education as Change, 11(3), 3–13. Osman, R., & Petersen, N. (Eds.). (2013). Service learning in South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press. Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept “thick description.” The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 538–549. Sigmon, R. L. (1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist, 8(1), 9–11. Strauss, A., & Corbin. J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedure for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Thomson, A. M., Smith-Tolken, A., Naidoo, A., & Bringle, R. G. (2011). Service learning and community engagement: A comparison of three national contexts. Voluntas, 22, 214–237.
Appendix A International Programs Stellenbosch University (IPSU) Certificate Program Framework Community Engagement in South Africa Rationale Stellenbosch University’s (SU) International Office offers a full-semester study-abroad program. The purpose of the program is to orientate and equip international students to understand the context of South African communities. The Certificate Program includes theory and practice in a variety of themes in community engagement, is credit bearing and includes service in a South African community. The content provides students with an opportunity to integrate academic learning with service to a community with benefits to both student and the community Aim The aim of the program is to provide study-abroad students the opportunity to demonstrate and develop their global citizenship through service-learning. Students will develop an understanding of the historical background and current issues and challenges impacting on community life in South Africa through service-learning within a South African community. Outcomes After completion of the program, students will have acquired • a basic understanding of South African history and current socioeconomic and political trends; • a beginner’s ability to read and understand a South African language, including a rudimentary proficiency in speaking the language; • a theoretical understanding of social inequality, poverty, underdevelopment and development, based on principles of community empowerment and within the context of a South African community where service-learning takes place;
374–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
• hands-on social and personal skills in serving a particular South African community that will be transferable to similar diverse communities elsewhere in the world; and • an enhanced sense of social responsibility, cultural and civic values. Outline The program consists of one compulsory course and two electives as indicated in the table below. Composition of Certificate Program in Community Engagement in SA Compulsory course 18 ECTS credits / 9 US credits • Service-Learning in Community Development (SLCD). See syllabus below. Elective courses Students select two courses from each of the following courses of 6 ECTS (3 US) credits each Students select one course from the South African Languages option: • Afrikaans for Beginners or • Xhosa Language and Culture Students select one course from the South African Studies option: • Economic and Development Problems in South Africa and Africa (strongly recommended) • Overview of SA History (strongly recommended) • Politics and Cultural Change in Contemporary SA • Political Science: Comparative African Politics and Democratisation • Political Science: Negotiating Transition • Political Science: Transitional Justice
Syllabus Service-Learning in Community Development (SLCD) Second Semester 2009 IPSU Course Code: 62103 314 Aim This course is compulsory for the IPSU Certificate Programme in Community Engagement in South Africa and aims to integrate the theory of community development with practice through service-learning. SLCD aims to give students the opportunity to apply abstract academic concepts and principles to a real-life situation while learning new skills, developing new values and attitudes, and providing much needed service to a community. The course is offered on a 3rd-year level (students should have completed at least 4 academic semesters). Outcomes On completion of the course, students will have acquired • an understanding of community development theory, including concepts, principles, processes and skills; • demonstration of the ability to apply above mentioned theory in community development practice; • an understanding of the philosophy, principles, and purpose of service-learning as applied to own learning process and learner role; • the ability to identify and shape their own service role in relation to service organizations/networks to specific community needs and assets; • the ability to collect, examine, and evaluate data about the development environment that guides all development activities on a micro level; • the skill to use basic research methods in a community context to discover and generate new knowledge; • critical thinking skills and the ability to learn though reflection of observations and experiences; • the ability to collaborate and work in a team,
49. The Affective-Cognitive Model of Reflection–•–375
• an experience of personal growth and an enhanced sense of social responsibility; and • a sensitivity and compassion for cultural diversity by being challenged by different value systems. Course rules • Class attendance is compulsory. • Scheduling of assignments and journal dates are strictly adhered to. • Service at the sites is structured and scheduled prior to service with students and community agencies and changes are only permissible if agreed to by all parties. • Students sign an indemnity form and a code of conduct prior to service. Assessment method The SLCD course is assessed through an exam equivalent portfolio and 60 hours community service-learning at a designated community organization. The exam equivalent assignment takes the form of a portfolio of evidence that is produced through continuous assessment tasks and products. The service experiences forms an integral part of the tasks and products which are collectively submitted at the end of the semester. Each miniassignment will be guided by a task addressing the outcomes in this module, and after grading, the average will be calculated as part of the final grade. At the end of the semester, students present their work to the course coordinators and the site supervisors during a course celebration event. Course requirements Stellenbosch University requires a pass percentage of 50%. In addition, students also have to comply with the following completion criteria to receive the Certificate at the end of a semester: • completion of three assignments; • one class test and one class presentation based on community development theory; • preparation and presentation (where applicable) of weekly theoretical assignments; • 10 reflective journals (1 per weekly contact with site); • timesheet with 60 hours community service certified by site supervisor, thus signed after completion of activities on every service learning day; and • submission of the portfolio in the required format at the end of the semester. Grading Formula Three assignments (CD theory + SL practice focus) (30 + 20 +5 0 = 100*0.3)
30
Class presentation & homework assignments (10 + 50 = 60/3)
20
Journal submission on WebCT (10 journals) (10 x 20 = 200/10)
20
Assessment by site supervisor (= 20/2)
10
Final presentation (report back assessed by facilitators) (= 20/2)
10
e-Portfolio, submission of additional artifacts (= 20/2)
10
TOTAL
100
Outline of course Week 1: After a brief meet and greet, students take part in an immersion exercise which is intended to sensitize them to and foster understanding of the cultural diversity of South Africa. Week 2: A three-hour course orientation to prepare students for service in the community. Students are introduced to the site where they will perform their service. Week 3–14: From the third week onward, an interrelated cycle of activities marking the distinguished composition of this course will commence. The course consists of three seamlessly integrated parts. Community Development theory sessions are presented on Thursdays (17:00–19:00) to prepare students with core academic skills and competencies for the week’s community interaction activities. Community Service-Learning Application and Reflection (CSL A&R) sessions on Fridays (11:00–13:00) empower students with skills and knowledge for Community Service-Learning (CSL) which refers to the interaction between the student and the service site. CSL takes place on Mondays to Thursdays (depending on arranged CSL times) totaling six hours per week to render a specific service as defined by the partner and agreed to by the student. Students will complete certain course-based activities on times as arranged with community partners. Service
376–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
activities will not take preference over academic responsibilities. Students reflect individually on various academic and practical issues through the submission of a reflective journal which is submitted online on the course website (see next paragraph) before 09:00 on Thursdays. When students return to the next cycle of sessions on Thursdays and Fridays, the facilitators would have assessed or evaluated most of the online submissions and would in a position to facilitate discussions on reflective content. This cycle of activities repeat for more or less 10 weeks. Learning platform WebStudies is the University’s Learner Management System, a course management software package used for this course. Students undergo orientation and training for using WebStudies during the first class session where all assignments and reflections are submitted. Course information and all the readings are electronically available and are grouped in separate folders for easy access. Antoinette Smith-Tolken & Jacob du Plessis July 2009
Appendix B Two Generic Questions and Broad Themes and Instructions for Weekly Reflection Journals Question 1: Using the DEAL model of reflection and the critical incident approach, describe the most important activities and interactions (incidents) during your service at your site of placement today (this week), as it relates to the theme of this particular journal. Why was it important? How did you feel during and after the incident(s) and why did you feel that way? (See identifiable feelings table.) Also describe any other feelings or reactions you experienced at your placement site today (this week). Question 2: This question relates back to your knowledge base (prior knowledge and experience, course readings and current research you undertake) and how this helps to inform you to understand your answer in the previous question. The instruction for this question is therefore to ‘step back’ from your experience and analyze as objective as possible the reasons for your feelings during the experience at the site. Relate experiences and observations to specific concepts and theories you learned in class or in classes prior to coming to South Africa. (Use the theme and specific readings referred to in the description of this journal on the journal web page as guideline). Journal Number
Broad Theme of the Week
Instruction for Journal
Journal 1
Entry into the community and first impressions of service-learning site guided by orientation contents
Site Entry Evaluation. In Chapter 17, you read that entry is an important part of the community development process. Write a site evaluation about your own entry into the community organization where you will do your CSL according to the questions below.
Journal 2
Organizational context of service-learning, relationship building as part of continued access to the community
The second journal covers the second week at the site or site-related activities. Apart from collecting data for your organizational profiles, you will become more acquainted with your site environment. In the first question, reflect on your becoming part of the organization, your building relationships with people as part of the access process. Reflect on how this influences what you are doing—your incident. In the second question, relate to concepts covered in last weeks’ classes. Who is the community (ies) at your site (target groups, individuals)? Who are the workers? What are the programs in the organization and how do the concepts covered relate to that?
49. The Affective-Cognitive Model of Reflection–•–377
Journal Number
Broad Theme of the Week
Instruction for Journal
Journal 3
Identification of roles of actors in community development process and own role in relation to the organizational context of service-learning
In the third week of CSL, the focus is on the roles of actors in the CD process of which the community is the most important one. Following on last week’s reflection, reflect on the further information you collected about the community and organization and how your role for the service period is unfolding. In the second question, reflect on one or more of the following: the interactional theory; stakeholders and networks; complexity theory; the challenges the organization faces sectorally, nationally, and globally.
Journal 4
Learning about the community organization and the community setting through the negotiation process of own service activity proposal
Follow through on what you have learned about the organization and the community. Chose an incident that relates to your negotiating of your proposed activity. In the second question, How does this activity relate to the organizational programs and goals?, relate to the approach (es) (asset based, etc.) the organization takes in CD and how you could tie your role to that. Which approach do you prefer and why?
Journal 5
Finalization of own role in the organization and activities scheduled for the following weeks, reflection on challenges encountered
This week is about the finalization of your role in the organization and what you will be doing in the next weeks. Reflect on how you rolled out your activity plan and the challenges you encountered. In the second question, relate your reflection to participation as a central concept in CD.
Journal 6
Implementation of proposed service activities and linkage to principles and values of community development and the community capitals framework
Welcome back from break. This week is the start of your proposed activity. Your reflection should cover the start of your activity and how it went. In the second question, relate to the capitals discussed in class before the break. How will the presence or absence of community capitals impact on your work and that of the site you work.
Journal 7
The relevance of communication, conflict deliberation, and negotiation
The class of 25 & 26 Sep. was dedicated to discussion about communication, conflict, and negotiation with Chapters 10 and 12 in the textbook as reference. Your reflection this week must include communication as part of your incident. In the second part of the reflection, you need to reflect cognitively on how your experiences confirm or challenge the text.
Journal 8
Monitoring and evaluation of planning and implementation of service activities
Project management and skills were the focus of the recent classes. Planning and implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and control are examples skills covered. Linking it to you site experience as you are implementing your planned activities, you may choose any of these to reflect on in this journal.
Journal 9
Planning for termination of You should now have a fair indication of where your activity process activities and reflection and is going. You are preparing to end off your process. Reflect on the articulation of own learning implications. In the second question, reflect on how you used the theory on evaluation to measure your success with the planned activities.
Journal 10
Summative journal and reflection on the practice of reflection through writing weekly reflection journals linked to service-learning theory; articulation of overall learning
In the last journal of the semester, you may reflect on the practice of journaling and use SL learning theory to relate to in the second question. It is also an opportunity to reflect on what is the most important thing you learned about CD in your experiences at the site.
50 FROM WISCONSIN TO GHANA AND BACK AGAIN Service-Learning and the First Grade MARGUERITE W. PENICK-PARKS AND SUZANNE FONDRIE University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh
A
ccording to the U.S. Census Bureau, by the year 2060, the U.S. population is projected to be approximately 43% Non-Hispanic White, 31% Hispanic, 15% Black, 8% Asian, and 1.5% American Indian and Alaska Native, with about 6% of residents identifying themselves as belonging to two or more groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The U.S. Education Department has projected that by fall 2014, more than half of U.S. public school students would be minorities (Krogstad & Fry, 2014). Steven A. Camarota (2007) states that about 1.5 million people immigrate to the United States annually. Rural school districts are not immune to the changing demographics in the United States. This chapter reviews the attempts by some teachers to effectively engage all students. A rural Wisconsin school district was experiencing an increasing number of students of color, mostly of Hmong and Mexican descent, moving into the area. This demographic shift resulted in some challenges in student engagement as well as an opportunity for teachers to examine their pedagogy. There were instances of behavior from some students that created disharmony and isolation and incidences of stereotypical student attitudes and behaviors. Examples of these include name calling, degrading of students, and leaving students out of groups. Some teachers within the district believed that the infusion of a multicultural and social justice-oriented curriculum would help to deconstruct some stereotypical attitudes and behavior. Four first-grade teachers embarked on a journey
to transform their school curriculum using servicelearning. They had the opportunity to engage in a servicelearning project supported by Teaching Tolerance magazine with a local university’s master’s student from Ghana, West Africa. One teacher noted that “It is about teaching our children to see things from a variety of perspectives and thinking about things, not just learning little facts. That would be tokenizing, which is what we don’t want to do.” This chapter focuses on a project that involved students and teachers from school districts in the United States and Ghana, West Africa. It entailed the integration of servicelearning with multicultural and global education to impact curriculum reform in rural elementary schools with first graders. The chapter begins by contextualizing the need for service-learning of this nature by providing the issues that students and teachers encounter in regard to the adoption of multiculturalism in a rural area. The following section offers a literature review that provides an overview of service-learning, especially as it relates to K–12 schools and the impact on student and teacher engagement. Subsequently the authors share how they responded to the issues that emerged in the school district and the practices and methods employed in applying service-learning in the classrooms. The chapter ends with the implications for students and faculty and a discussion of the need for further research and the development of pedagogical techniques to increase student understanding of, and openness to, differences among people. 379
380–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Challenges Facing Rural Districts Small rural school districts with relatively little racial diversity are seeing a greater need for restructuring their curriculum to reflect the demographic shift in their school population. Many are experiencing an increase in students of various races moving into the rural communities. The Wisconsin school district featured in this chapter is reflective of many communities throughout the United States. The schools are witnessing the perpetuation of stereotypes as a result of the racial and linguistic diversity resulting from this influx of students. The stereotypes are created by isolation or the influence of media and technology. According to Fred Yeo (1999), “In many rural schools (and therefore their local communities) there seems to exist a lack of knowledge about and/or unwillingness to acknowledge the existing and/or increasing demographic diversity of their areas and communities” (p. 4). Students in rural communities often are exposed to people of color only on television or in the movies. In the state of Wisconsin, that means many of their ideas often come from what they see or hear about those who live in Milwaukee. What is shown on the news or in music videos leads some students to internalize one-sided images with no reality to compare their perspective. Teachers in rural schools often do not have access to the funds for workshops, speakers, or the resources available to teachers in larger communities or those located near urban centers. Various articles have revealed that many rural schools are left out of education policy discussions, especially when the issue of multicultural education emerges (Beeson & Strange, 2003). Yeo (1999) explores how rural schools tend to think of race and culture as synonymous, which does not allow the communities to understand race, power, gender, and class, but instead “superficializes” culture (p. 2). Yeo agrees with Sonia Nieto (1995) when he posits that the misunderstanding and resistance raised in issues of multiculturalism need to be understood by rural educators, taking into particular consideration that multicultural education has historically been opposed to all forms of social oppression. For these reasons, lessons grounded in personal understanding need to be brought to rural schools.
Review of Literature Service-learning is being implemented rapidly in K–12 curricula throughout the United States. It is viewed as “a teaching and learning method which fosters civic responsibility and links classroom learning and applied learning in communities” (Dary, Prueter, Grinde, Grobschmidt, & Evers, 2010, p. 8). Service-learning differs from community service. When students participate in community service, the students’ involvement usually
consists primarily of service provision (Anderson, 1999). Examples of this are canned food drives or cleaning up litter in a park. Approaches like canned food or clothing drives are primarily one-sided with no authentic, valuable relationship to community partners or curricula goals. An authentic service-learning approach involves students and the partners of the service-learning project working hand in hand and developing a partnership. Another example from a study conducted by Nancy Freeman and Sherry King (2001) is the Lunch Time Book Buddies servicelearning project. Preschool students partnered with senior citizens to spend a portion of their day eating lunch and reading with each other. At the end of the school year, books collected were donated to at-risk elementary students. The study reports that along with cognitive, social, emotional, and physical developments, students participating in this project also showed an increase in empathy and displaying sensitivity to others. Research consistently shows that well-implemented service-learning projects can increase awareness and empathy (Billig, 2000a, b; Holladay, 2006).
Responding to School Needs: Multicultural Education and Service-Learning “To change things is difficult, but possible,” Paulo Freire posited (1998, p. 75). United States public schools historically have used traditional teaching methods, which are focused on content and critical thinking skills. When pedagogies that challenge traditional methods are presented to the system, teachers struggle with the decision of whether to implement new methods into their classrooms. Even for those teachers that decide to implement new teaching strategies to meet the needs of all learners, there continues to exist the paucity of opportunities to learn and practice the requisite skills and strategies. Although service-learning is not a new philosophy, it still challenges the traditional teaching methodology. A service-learning project grounded in the philosophy of social justice, as proposed by Freire (1970), does not simply teach children facts about various cultures and communities but also challenges them to think about issues of equality and justice. A critical goal of multicultural education is to teach about cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity so students can acquire the knowledge necessary to be civically engaged and responsible (Banks, 2002). James Banks’s multicultural education social action approach works in tandem with a well-planned servicelearning project to reduce prejudice and stereotypes. According to Banks (2002), a multicultural curriculum should be one that requires students to “take personal, social, and civic actions to help solve the racial and ethnic problems in our national and world societies” (p. 24). These ideas are directly linked to the foundations of
50. From Wisconsin to Ghana and Back Again–•–381
service-learning which believes “service-learning enhances students’ valuable academic skills, including communication, team-building, and critical thinking; builds their selfesteem; and develops their sense of responsibility for decision-making” (p. i). Service-learning projects that are culturally integrated create an environment where students learn about their similarities but also learn to value cultural difference (Honnet & Poulsen, 1989). According to Freire (1970), “True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity” (p. 28). Continuing the idea of true generosity, Freire stresses that when people learn to extend generosity to others, they spread this message of generosity person by person so they can “transform the world” (p. 29). In other words, a true service-learning project should be based in a philosophy that allows both parties to grow and benefit, rather than a tokenized affair of one group handing out “stuff ” to another. Holladay (2006) says a servicelearning project should be about learning to “work ‘with,’ not ‘for’” (para. 6). Thus the service-learning project was born to address issues emerging in a Wisconsin rural school, including stereotypes, prejudices, empathy, and awareness. At the start of the project, multiculturalism was absent from this school’s first-grade curriculum. The reasons given by the teachers were the same reasons always heard: “There are no books in the library,” “The school says we can’t,” “I don’t have the time,” “We have to do this change so I can’t do that one.” Unfortunately, these are legitimate concerns that come from teachers who want to change and who see the need to change. Before this year, if anyone would have asked me if I was incorporating multiculturalism into my teaching, I would have said yes. It wasn’t until I began learning more about the good and the bad ways to incorporate multicultural education that I really started to think about what I was doing was wrong. Through this project, I have begun realizing what I was doing before this point was perpetuating stereotypes, using poor resources, and tokenizing by teaching only about a few aspects of African Americans and Hispanics. (First-grade teacher)
Context Four rural school teachers and a teacher from Ghana developed a first-grade multicultural curriculum and service-learning project. Teaching Tolerance magazine funded this project. The teachers engaged in a partnership with a school through its headmistress, Sister Mary Assumpta, who was also an English-as-a-secondlanguage/bilingual-education student from the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh. The goal of the service-learning portion of the project was to create an opportunity for the first-grade students to reach Banks’s (2002) social action level.
Infusing Multicultural Education The multicultural component of the project was grounded in the integration of Banks’s (2002) four-level multicultural curriculum reform. This method provides a framework for teachers to implement the social action level in their classrooms. The underlying theme of the fourth level of the approach, social action, is that teachers are responsible for giving students skills to be socially active. This level requires students to be critical thinkers and decision makers regarding the issues they have studied (Banks, 2002).
Embracing Service-Learning: Classroom Application Assessing Prior Knowledge Early in the year, all students were given an oral pretest to assess prior knowledge of the African continent (Table 50.1). One first-grade teacher shares the results: Many of my students had misconceptions of what life is like in Africa. They believed Africans wore animal skin, slept in huts on the ground, and that they saw African animals by looking out a window or walking down the street.
Reviewing data from the pretest was very helpful as it helped deconstruct the misconceptions that teachers may have had about their students. Teaching Approach Key strategies used by the teachers that proved to be effective were changing the classroom layout, employing various pedagogical teaching methods and learning activities, doing whole group and individualized instruction units on Ghana, and establishing a pen pal program. All of these strategies are interwoven and are, thus, discussed throughout this element of applying service-learning. The teachers transformed the layout of the classroom to set the stage for the unit. They decorated their rooms with maps, photos, and books reflecting the ethnic, geographic, and cultural diversity of Ghana. The teachers used various teaching styles to ensure that each student’s learning style was supported. They incorporated the 4MAT System (McCarthy, 1997) of feeling and reflecting, reflecting and thinking, thinking and doing, and creating and acting. The first learning style addressed was the Type 1 learner: the highly imaginative student who favors feeling and reflecting (McCarthy, 1997). To address this style, teachers exposed the students to what school life was like in Ghana and discussed possible ways the two groups of students could positively impact each other. One of the activities that best addressed this content was the pen pal
382–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Question
Student Responses
Where is Africa?
Don't know I think on the other side of the state. Down South Way, way from South Dakota Way West
Where do they sleep?
In stick houses In their houses—no beds On the floor On the ground On their beds In a hut
What do they wear?
Clothes like mine, mostly long sleeves Different clothes like skin from deer and fur Different kinds of clothes—like grass skirts; They make their clothes from grass and stuff. Don't know Skins from animals They makes clothes out of yarn.
Do you know anyone from Africa?
Atlantis—he was here and went back to Africa. I don't actually know anyone from Africa. I haven't been up in Africa. Let's see—I'm from Africa I think because my mom had lived all over the world. No.
Would you visit Africa? Why or why not?
No—it is not fun over there—I only go to places that are fun—like California. No—it costs a lot of money to go there. No—it's probably cold over there. No—they have rhinos, lions and they are meat eaters. Yes—I like Africa. I like visiting people. Yes—I might go swimming there if they have a swimming pool there. Yes—to meet other people.
Table 50.1
Africa Pretest
SOURCE: Marguerite W. Penick-Parks and Suzanne Fondrie, using student responses to teacher interviews.
exchange. Sister Mary brought in pictures of and stories about the students in Ghana in order to introduce them to the class. The Wisconsin students then exchanged letters with the Ghanaian students several times throughout the course of the year. The letters are an excellent example of how students were able to explore both the similarities and differences of their lives. For example, both groups of children share that their favorite activity is to read, but their favorite foods show differences: pizza versus rice. In order to include the Type 2 learner (the analytic student who favors reflecting and thinking), the teachers turned to Sister Mary, who taught the students an entire social studies unit on Ghana. The unit included history, culture, language, and current issues facing the children in the Ghanaian school. During this time, the teachers learned
how quickly students can build stereotypes. Several weeks into the unit, teachers decided to do a survey of student progress. One of the pretest questions the teachers revisited was “What do people in Ghana wear?” to which students answered, “White dresses.” As a member of the Catholic Church, Sister Mary had consistently been coming to school in her white habit. The next day, she arrived in clothes she felt more accurately depicted Ghana, and for the remainder of the year, she alternated wearing both types of clothing when she came to the classroom, breaking down that particular misconception. Sister Mary’s unit exposed students to Ghanaian history and culture from a personal point of view and provided the reflective skills needed to compare and contrast their lives with the lives of the students in Ghana:
50. From Wisconsin to Ghana and Back Again–•–383 While teaching her unit on Ghana, she [Sister Mary] made it clear to the students in my classroom that many children in Ghana lived life just as they do. She answered their questions without making judgments and with care. Sister Mary explained to them and showed them pictures of how children in Ghana live and told them that the only place she had ever seen an elephant or a lion was at the zoo. (First-grade teacher)
In contrast to the more reflective Type 2 learner, Type 3 learners are the ones who favor thinking and doing. They are considered to be common-sense learners. During the project, this type of student thrived by working one on one with Sister Mary. As part of the unit, Sister Mary assigned the students a project that involved researching and studying a particular aspect of Ghana. Projects included comparing the flag of Ghana to the flag of the United States, creating folk tales based on books read in class, comparing and contrasting major crops, and an extension of a science unit on famine. Students engaged in activities that enabled them to work with Sister Mary and each other and to express their creativity throughout the project. Turning to the work of Geneva Gay (2000) this type of lesson is grounded in the ideas of culturally responsive pedagogy by bringing personal ideas and reflection into the learning process. Students were able to compare and contrast their lives with the students in Ghana and become introspective about cultural diversity. Growth from this unit was reflected in not only in the students’ work, but also in teachers’ growing awareness of how to reach their students on a more personal level, as opposed to sticking to the standard curriculum. Finally, the Type 4 learner is the dynamic learner who favors creating and acting. Because Sister Mary intends to return to Ghana and open a school upon the completion of her doctorate, the students decided to do everything they could to help her “open the best school in Africa.” In addition to creating a class book to send to Ghana, students throughout the year engaged in numerous fund-raising activities to purchase supplies for the school. They also collected gently used materials to send. It was the students’ responsibility to design ways to collect needed items for the school.
alone opened many eyes to stereotypes. They studied famine and hunger in both Ghana and their own community and made strides to create change in their school for those in need. What the first-grade students learned crossed over to the entire school, as projects for the school in Ghana came to involve both school and community, with the firstgrade students leading the way. The impact made by the project and Sister Mary on these students will stick with them for a lifetime because of both content and method. A possibly greater impact, however, was on the teachers. This particular group of teachers will never teach in the same way. Their classrooms have become environments where students question, explore, and learn that there is more than one perspective on every issue. The teachers also know they can help students become agents of social change by exposing them to the ideals of servicelearning, and to that end, they continue to implement a service-learning project with each and every class, changing global perspectives in rural Wisconsin four first-grade classrooms at a time. As one first-grade teacher said, I have been teaching for twelve years, and year after year we do the same things. This project in particular has made me want to change how I teach. I think sometimes I am afraid of change and don’t want to “make waves.” I learned that even though I didn’t mean to, I was perpetuating stereotypes by what I did in my classroom. I am more aware of what I teach. I realize my students are not going to be exposed to diversity or how to deal with differences unless I show them how.
Extending the Study Although this service-learning project reveals the impact on the Wisconsin students and teachers who participated, it lacks information regarding the Ghanaian students’ and teachers’ ideas about culture and life in the United States. The logical extension to this study, therefore, is a similar one that examines the perspectives of the participants in Ghana: their preconceptions about U.S. students and schools and how they internalize the new information after the experience. It would be fruitful to compare the two groups to see the nature of change in each case.
Conclusion and Implications
Future Possibilities
The goal of the service-learning project was to reduce prejudice and stereotypes through learning factual information and sharing information between schools and children (Holladay, 2006). By connecting in real ways with students in Ghana, the Wisconsin students were better able to understand how many misconceptions they had about some students in the African continent. The impact on the first-grade students ranged from the academic to the personal. By spring, students knew Africa was not one large nation but a continent with many diverse countries. The idea that Ghana does not represent an entire continent
Because many secondary schools are implementing service-learning requirements for graduation, further research could support starting this requirement in earlier grades. Longitudinal research on the academic achievement of students exposed to service-learning in the early grades that is grounded in equity and social justice might inform the field so others will recognize the potential of an early education in social action and implement servicelearning with their students. Consider a school district that implements service-learning in the early grades and continues it in more and more sophisticated ways as students
384–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
move into secondary grades: What might be the outcome for those students, both as lifelong learners and as citizens of the state, country, and the world?
Resources Rethinking Schools, www.rethinkingschools.org Rethinking Schools has grown from a group of teachers to being one of the premier sources in the country for social justice curriculum. It is committed to equity in all schools, although there is an emphasis on issues of race and urban education. Rethinking Schools publishes a journal and coordinates the Zinn Education Project, aimed at teaching history from multiple perspectives. Publications include Rethinking Our Classrooms, Rethinking Columbus, and Teaching for Joy and Justice. This is a valuable resource for any educator searching for accessible classroom resources.
Know.” In addition, the CCBC keeps annual statistics on books published by and about traditionally underrepresented groups. One resource provided by the CCBC is its librarians, who will answer educators’ questions as they search for a book in any valued area, such as a quality book to introduce service-learning to elementary students. Critical Multicultural Pavilion, www.edchange .org/multicultural Multicultural Pavilion is an EdChange project created by social activist Paul Gorski. This resource is essential for those who want develop their curriculum to engage in social justice, service-learning, and social action. Teachers will find printable resources to introduce students to issues of equity and diversity. The website is regularly updated with current reading and professional development opportunities. This is one of the largest sites for connections to ongoing social justice activism.
Teaching Tolerance, www.tolerance.org
American Library Association, www.ala.org
Teaching Tolerance is part of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization dedicated to combating “hate, intolerance and discrimination” (www.splcenter.org). According to Tolerance.org, the organization is “a place for educators to find thought-provoking news, conversation and support for those who care about diversity, equal opportunity and respect for differences in schools.” The website consists of searchable K–12 resources, many of which are free to schools. The organization gives awards, grants, and support to teachers striving to create change in their classrooms.
The American Library Association is one of the most prominent organizations giving awards in multiple areas for quality children’s and young adult literature. The Coretta Scott King Book Award for African American authors, the Pura Belpré Award for Latino authors, and the Stonewall Awards for books that address issues of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning, intersex, asexual, and ally (LGBTQIAA) are all given by the American Library Association.
Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC), www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc The Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC) is part of the University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Education. It is a noncirculating research library for those interested in children’s and young adult literature. The CCBC receives and evaluates more than 5,000 books yearly. One essential component of the CCBC is its multicultural lists, including “50 Multicultural Books Every Child Should Know” and “30 Multicultural Books Every Teen Should
References and Further Readings Anderson, J. (1998). Service-learning and teacher education (Report No. ED421481). Washington, DC: ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-1/service .html Angelou, M. (1996). Kofi and his magic. New York, NY: Clarkson Potter. Banks, J. A. (2002). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2003). Why rural matters, 2003: The continuing need for every state to take action on rural
Oyate, www.oyate.org The teachers involved in the project in this chapter found one of their major hurdles was determining resources that would accurately portray the American Indian experience in the North American celebration of Thanksgiving. To determine what to use, they turned to Oyate. The goal of Oyate is help evaluate Native American materials for quality. One dominant source is a downloadable pamphlet, “How to Tell the Difference,” which can be used by educators to determine bias in sources. Other key sources help educators understand Thanksgiving from an indigenous perspective.
education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 18(1), 3–16. Billig, S. H. (2000a). The impact of service-learning on youth, schools, and communities: Research on K–12 school-based service learning, 1990–1999. Retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/ resource/2002/04/the-impacts-of-service-learning-onyouth-schools-and-communities-research-on-k-12school-based Billig, S. H. (2000b). Research on K–12 school-based servicelearning: The evidence builds. Phi Delta Kappan, 8, 658–664.
50. From Wisconsin to Ghana and Back Again–•–385 Camarota, S. A. (2007, November). Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A profile of America’s foreign-born population. Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved from http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2007/ back1007.pdf Cowhey, M. (2006). Black ants and Buddhists: Thinking critically and teaching differently in the primary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Dary, T., Prueter, B., Grinde, J., Grobschmidt, R., & Evers, T. (2010). High quality instruction that transforms: A guide to implementing quality academic service-learning (Bulletin No. 00131). Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved from http://sl.dpi.wi.gov/files/sl/pdf/ high_quality_learning_web.pdf Duda, M. A., & Minick, V. (2006). Easing the transition to kindergarten: Demonstrating partnership through servicelearning. Mentoring & Tutoring, 14(1), 111–121. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Research Database. Eby, J. W. (1998). Why service-learning is bad. Retrieved from http://www.messiah.edu/documents/Agape/wrongsvc.pdf Feelings, M. L. (1974). Jambo means hello: Swahili alphabet book. New York, NY: Puffin Books. Fitzgerald, B. (1997). Service learning in elementary schools: What? Why? How? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED424161). Retrieved from http://files.eric .ed.gov/fulltext/ED424161.pdf Freeman Ellis, V. (1989). Afro-Bets: First book about Africa. Orange, NJ: Just Us Books. Freeman, N. K., & King, S. (2001). Service learning in preschool: An intergenerational project involving five-yearolds, fifth graders, and senior citizens. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(4), 211–217. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Research Database. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Frey, L. M. (2003). Abundant beautification: An effective service-learning project for students with emotional or behavioral disorders [Electronic version]. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(5), 66–75. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Research Database. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hansen, J. (2004). African princess: The amazing lives of Africa’s royal women. New York, NY: Hyperion Books for Children. Haskins, J., & Benson, K. (1998). African beginnings. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard Books.
Holladay, J. (2006). Service-learning and prejudice reduction. Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.org/servicelearning Honnet, E. P., & Poulsen, S. J. (1989). Principles of good practice for combining service and learning: A wingspread special report. Retrieved from https://www.national serviceresources.gov/files/r4174-principles-of-goodpractice-for-combining-service-and-learning.pdf Jaffe, N. (1995). Older brother, younger brother. New York, NY: Viking Children’s Books. Krogstad, J. M., & Fry, R. (2014). Dept. of Ed. projects public schools will be ‘majority-minority’ this fall. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/18/u-s-publicschools-expected-to-be-majority-minority-starting-this-fall Kroll, V. L. (1997). Masai and I. New York, NY: Aladdin. Kurtz, J. (2000). Faraway home. New York, NY: Harcourt. Kurusa. (1995). The streets are free. New York, NY: Annick Press. McCarthy, B. (1997, March). A tale of four learners: 4MATS learning styles. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 46–51. Nieto, S. (1995). A history of the education of Puerto Rican students in U.S. schools: ‘Losers,’ ‘outsiders,’ or ‘leaders’? In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 388–411). New York, NY: Macmillan. Onyefulu, I. (1995). Emeka’s gift: An African counting story. New York, NY: Dutton Books. Skinner, R., & Chapman, C. (1999). Service-learning and community service in K–12 public schools (NCES 1999-043). National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999043.pdf Tingle, T. (2006). Crossing Bok Chitto: A Choctaw tale of friendship & freedom. El Paso, TX: Cinco Puntos Press. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, December 12). U.S. Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. Retrieved from http:// www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/ cb12-243.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Service-learning: Learning by doing: Students take greening to the community (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/osw/education/ pdfs/svclearn.pdf Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2001, December). Sustaining service-learning in Wisconsin: What principals, teachers, & students say about servicelearning. Retrieved from http://sl.dpi.wi.gov/files/sl/pdf/ slsustain.pdf Yeo, F. (1999). The barriers of diversity: Multiculturalism and rural schools. Multicultural Education, 7(1), 2–7.
51 ENGLAND’S CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION EXPERIMENT Active Citizenship or Service? LEE JEROME Queen’s University Belfast
T
his chapter compares the English tradition of active citizenship education (embodied in the national curriculum for citizenship) with the U.S. tradition of service-learning. Following some initial observations about the different traditions in the two countries the chapter focuses on three significant issues that are common to both traditions: (1) the type of experience educators should facilitate, (2) the relationship between that experience and citizenship education, and (3) the pedagogy of experiential learning. The concluding section makes some suggestions as to why, given there are such significant shared educational and political concerns, the English educational community has not connected more positively with the longer established tradition of service-learning.
Service-Learning For teachers in the United Kingdom, service-learning is a largely unknown tradition, and there is certainly no established and recognized parallel tradition in Britain. For those helping to establish and shape citizenship education in England from 2002 onward, the active dimension was therefore relatively new. In retrospect, it is possible to identify a strong shared aspiration with the broader service-learning community of practitioners, especially in relation to the kind of definition offered by Felicia Wilczenski and Susan Coomey (2007), who describe it
as “an experiential approach to education that involves students in meaningful, real-world activities that can advance social, emotional, career, and academic curricula goals while benefitting communities” (p. viii). One can recognize the importance of John Dewey’s (1997) ideal of experiential learning, and in practice one can also recognize the ongoing diversity within service-learning where some projects focus more on the service, others are driven more by a learning focus, and others try to balance the two. Typically a service-learning project includes a connection between the academic curriculum and an experience that meets real community needs to some context, as we have tried to achieve in England as well. John Annette (2008) has argued that the early focus on communitybased internships, which were popular in the United States in the 1960s, have largely given way to a model that seeks to link the service element more explicitly to citizenship learning. The nature of this link remains controversial, and it is not always clear what form of citizenship education is being pursued through such programs (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). In addition to the contribution to citizenship education, advocates also champion the contribution of servicelearning projects to developing social capital (Howard, 2006), improving attitudes toward “others” (Morgan & Streb, 2001), enabling students to feel more of a connection to local communities (Ransom, 2009) and developing moral reasoning (Koliba, 2000). They can also be used to 387
388–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
structure community-based research projects as opportunities for students to learn and apply their learning (Paul, 2009). When working well, these projects are reciprocal, in that they promote student learning and further the aims of the partner organization (Jacoby & Brown, 2009) and so they also hold out the possibility of making a direct contribution to wider social aims. However, as Susan Jones, Jen Gilbride-Brown, and Anna Gasiorski’s (2005) discussion of student resistance to “service” unwittingly demonstrates, there are ongoing problems with the relationship between the two elements of service and learning. Although the main focus of their article is the analysis of forms of resistance displayed by student participants, it also becomes clear that the service being discussed relates to a volunteer program in a food preparation center. The nature of the experience is not fully described in their account and only emerges through extracts of student testimony, and from this it is clear that some of the resisters described essentially menial tasks— unpacking stock and organizing foodstuff on shelves. While it is unlikely that these tasks form the basis of their entire service-learning program it does seem significant that these are the tasks that some of these resisters complain about. One might question the nature of the experience in this case and ask whether this kind of experience is likely to lead to the wider benefits just listed? This illustrates a continuing tendency for some projects to focus on the act of service rather than the nature of service and its relationship to learning for citizenship—a debate that has also emerged in relation to the more recent introduction of citizenship education in England.
Education for Active Citizenship There are some advocates for service-learning in England (e.g., Community Service Volunteers, 2013; Annette, 2008; Potter, 2002), but it is far from establishing itself as a common term in educational discourse. Instead, the features of service-learning are dispersed through a more holistic model of citizenship education, one of the elements of which is active citizenship. Although citizenship was not introduced into the national curriculum until 2002, the active dimension has come to be seen as one of its defining features. The programs of study, which defined the subject for 11- to 16–year-olds, were clear in establishing the scope of this new curriculum entitlement. The initial curriculum included the requirement to develop “skills of participation and responsible action,” and said pupils should be taught to • use their imagination to consider other people’s experiences and be able to think about, express and explain views that are not their own; • negotiate, decide and take part responsibly in both school and community-based activities; and • reflect on the process of participating. (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2000)
In the subsequent revised curriculum in 2008, the language was changed to “taking informed and responsible action.” It said pupils should be able to • explore creative approaches to taking action on problems and issues to achieve intended purposes; • work individually and with others to negotiate, plan and take action on citizenship issues to try to influence others, bring about change or resist unwanted change, using time and resources appropriately; • analyze the impact of their actions on communities and the wider world, now and in the future; and • reflect on the progress they have made, evaluating what they have learnt, what went well, the difficulties encountered and what they would do differently. (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2008)
In the same way that service-learning includes a wide range of experiences, active citizenship has been interpreted to include many different types of activities. Some school-based activities are extracurricular, for example school councils and projects designed to share responsibility for inclusion between children and staff. Some projects are more focused on campaigning as a form of active citizenship, for example, in school, campaigns might tackle bullying, while other campaigns might reach out into the community and include lobbying politicians and other agencies. The British Library’s education project Campaign Make an Impact (British Library Board, n.d.) provides a pedagogic framework for such activities and case studies of previous projects include the voting age, local transport, litter, and knife crime. Other forms of active citizenship can be initiated at the local government level, with consultations and opportunities for involvement being led by local authority staff working in community groups (for example, Islington’s project www.participationworks.org .uk). Active citizenship therefore not only engages young people with almost any topic, but can also take place in a range of contexts: It may be limited to the classroom or school, it may reach out from the school into the community, or it may start in the community and connect back to the curriculum. After eight years of citizenship in the national curriculum, young people’s positive intentions to participate continued to be generally correlated with high levels of civic knowledge and parental interest in social and political issues (Nelson, Wade, & Kerr, 2010, p. 96). Where citizenship education has been introduced consistently and with specialist teachers, there is a measurable change in young people’s attitudes and actions. Significantly, within this generally positive picture, the data from longitudinal research (e.g., Keating, Kerr, Benton, Mundy, & Lopes, 2010) indicate that activities such as voting and volunteering are supported much more highly than more “activist” forms of citizenship, such as joining a political party, campaigning, and attending meetings, which reflects the patterns of active citizenship in the general population. This reflects a tendency for young people to hold a more
51. England’s Citizenship Education Experiment–•–389
holistic definition of citizenship than merely political participation (Nelson et al., 2010). In turn, this suggests that notions of the “good citizen” still hold out over the “active citizen,” which in turn reflects Bernard Crick’s (2000) discussion of the prevalent tendency to favor a depoliticized account of the “good citizen.” This reflects the debate in the United States as characterized by Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne (2004), and indicates a preference for the “personally responsible citizen” over the “participatory” and “justice oriented citizens” (p. 266).
Service-Learning and Education for Active Citizenship Compared The comparison of active citizenship education and servicelearning raises several issues that link to foundational questions about the nature, scope, and purpose of citizenship education. While one always needs to consider the overarching model of citizenship adopted in any specific curriculum or project, here I focus on three additional issues, which emerge as particularly significant: (1) the nature of the experience that contributes to political learning, (2) the relationship between developing political literacy and social capital through such experiences, and (3) the processes through which experience is transformed into learning.
The Nature of the Experience Around the time of the introduction of citizenship into the national curriculum in England, the Department for Education and Skills funded a project called Active Citizenship in Schools (ACiS). The project (Stenton, 2004) emphasized the continuum of active citizenship across four dimensions: 1. From adult-led, young person-centered to young personled activity 2. From school-based activity to activity in the wider community 3. From individual to group activity 4. From helping others to taking issue based action
This is helpful in thinking about forms of active citizenship and forms of service. While it is easy to think about the maximal forms of public engagement that form archetypal acts of citizenship, it is equally important to remember that small can be beautiful. This key message emerged in an initial teacher education course, where student teachers were encouraged to reflect on their experience facilitating active citizenship in schools. One student teacher argued that Smaller events such as individual tutor groups organizing fundraising activities where they design and plan the activities
themselves with teachers acting as guides are often more valuable than whole school organized events which have little student participation in the planning stages. (Jerome, 2006, p. 319)
Another student teacher wrote: Providing meaningful active citizenship experiences for all pupils is not about turning each pupil into highly motivated politically galvanized individuals, rather it is about providing the framework and activities for pupils to experience community action in a meaningful way, which they may otherwise never experience. (Jerome, 2006, p. 319)
These sentiments reflect to some extent the viewpoint of Bjarne Jensen and Karsten Schnack (1994) who emphasize the educational value of such activities over and above the concrete project outcomes: It is not and cannot be the task of the school to solve the political problems of society. Its task is not to improve the world with the help of the pupils’ activities . . . These (activities) must be assessed on the basis of . . . educational criteria. The crucial factor must be what the pupils learn from participating in such actions. (p. 14)
While such learning can include the hard-edged political literacy required for effective citizenship learning, it is also important to remember that the learning can be emotional and highly personal. If such experiences are to really engage with young people’s personal development and growth, then these student teachers’ reflections indicate that small scale projects will have a valuable role.
The Relationship Between Developing Political Literacy and Social Capital Annette (2008) has argued that the relationship between active citizenship and social capital has emerged as a key problem in the debate about citizenship education, especially given the prominence of both concepts for the Labour government that introduced citizenship education in England. Crick (2002) addressed these issues to some extent in “A Note on What Is and What Is Not Active Citizenship.” In one example of how the call to promote action can be misunderstood, he described a school that claimed to be doing an active citizenship project by enabling a group of pupils to plan a party for the elderly in a residential home near the school. The young people negotiated with the staff, bought provisions, and organized entertainment. On the face of it this seems to demonstrate participation, but this is not, according to Crick, what active citizenship is about. In considering what could have transformed the project into active citizenship, he suggests: • A prior investigation into the complex policy area of health care and provision for the elderly
390–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES • An investigation into why some of the residents were being cared for in a state-funded institution, and whether the level of funding was adequate • Representations to the relevant public authorities
It is relevant, given the significance of this fictional case study in Crick’s clarification, to reflect on what distinctions are being made here and what assumptions about citizenship underlie his discussion. On the one hand, there is some similarity here with the definitions of servicelearning quoted at the beginning of this chapter, which called for real-life problems and critical thinking. In essence, what is needed is some knowledge base in order that the situation is understood. Indeed, it is the notion of young people being “informed” that marks Roger Hart’s (1992) distinction between genuine participation and nonparticipation, which is deemed to consist of tokenism, decoration, or manipulation. However, one might also want to encourage young people to participate in the project outlined earlier because they will get to know groups within the community, build relationships with people from another generation, possibly feel the satisfaction of a job well done and enjoy helping out, and boost their sense of self-esteem and their appreciation of others. Through these additional outcomes the project may build bridging social capital, and therefore it may play a part in the school’s overall vision for developing citizens, regardless of the extent to which political literacy (civic knowledge) has been addressed. Ben Kisby (2012) has attempted to analyze citizenship education in England primarily as an attempt to recreate or strengthen social capital. Even Crick (1982) acknowledged the value of everyday associations in his major work, In Defense of Politics, where he argued that politics is an essential element of what it is to be human: The more one is involved in relationships with others, the more conflicts of interest, or of character and circumstance will arise. These conflicts, when personal, create the activity we call ‘ethics’ . . . and such conflicts, when public, create political activity. (p. 10)
From this perspective such “public interactions” could be seen as the bedrock of political education, and there is no obvious reason why the joint effort required to negotiate and organize the party for elderly people discussed earlier would not fulfill these criteria. If we expand our notion of relevant experiences to recognize that democracy is lived in the acts of coming together to discuss, resolve, and take action, we derive a significantly different agenda for school-based citizenship education. This agenda is actually closer to Dewey’s (1997) understanding of the purposes of education and the link to experiential learning, as he put it, Is it not the reason for our preference [for democracy] that we believe that mutual consultation and convictions
reached through persuasion, make possible a better quality of experience than can otherwise be provided on any wide scale? . . . Personally I do not see how we can justify our preference for democracy and humanity on any other ground. (pp. 34–35)
This strengthens the argument that the foundations of education for democracy might best be established by focusing on the experience of getting along together and engaging in meaningful deliberation (thus building social capital) rather than by a premature induction into public policy debates. There is then, a tension between the definition of politics, which focuses on the process of working with others to achieve ends within the public sphere (the example of students organizing a party and negotiating with others to achieve their goals seems to fit this definition) and an expectation that such activities, to count as citizenship, must at least touch on relevant questions of policy or governance (which is implied by the additional questions with which Crick wants the students to engage). This is a tension that also seems to underpin much of the discussion about service-learning as a pedagogic approach.
The Processes Through Which Experience Is Transformed Into Learning If we are concerned that young people learn from their experiences, the role of reflection and therefore of facilitation is important in the process. David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker (1985) provide one example of how to achieve this through three distinct stages. First, students must recall what happened. Second, they have to deal with their emotional response and recognize feelings that may obstruct clear thinking. Third, they should attempt to reevaluate the experience by exploring their feelings, identifying key learning outcomes, and testing their conclusions for consistency. Building on such approaches, several individuals and educational organizations produced guidance for citizenship teachers in England, highlighting the usefulness of tools such as David Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (Potter, 2002). In a similar vein, service-learning assessment should balance both the knowledge and the skills acquired and there are several layers of outcomes that could be assessed. • From a general knowledge perspective, students may learn about specific public issues they are working on. • From a political literacy perspective, they may learn about civic participation and the range of actions available to citizens. • From an interpersonal perspective, they may learn about strategies for working with others. • From an intrapersonal perspective they may also learn something about themselves, their own motivations and interests. (Jerome, 2008)
51. England’s Citizenship Education Experiment–•–391
In England in 2012, approximately 75,000 students (only about 10% of those eligible) took an end of school examination in citizenship, part of which included a written report of their active citizenship experience. The examiner’s report indicated that most of these young people were indeed able to use the opportunity to reflect meaningfully on their experience and what they have learned in relation to these various levels of knowledge and skills (Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, 2012). In relation to this aspect of experiential learning, Dewey (1997) provides an important warning, which is relevant to citizenship teachers and those who facilitate service-learning alike: The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other. For some experiences are mis-educative. Any experience is mis-educative that has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience. (p. 25)
The implication of Dewey’s insight is that while negative experiences can be educational if handled well, any experience has the potential not just to fail as a learning experience but to have a destructive effect on future learning. In relation to citizenship education, this points to the fact that young people, indeed all citizens, stand to learn a lot through reflecting on their experience of researching, planning, and participating in a political process, regardless of whether the end goal is achieved. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that young people may participate in an experience that actually deters them from future participation even if they achieve the project goal (through feeling belittled, marginalized, insulted, or simply ignored). This insight into how experience relates to education provides a profound challenge for teacher education. It implies that teachers who are inadequately prepared to facilitate experiential learning as part of the active dimension to citizenship education or service-learning could have harmful effects on the development of active citizens. At best, the learning may be minimized if teachers are not able to guide learners effectively through reflection and evaluation. At worst, teachers who fail to support young people through the process, and therefore fail to help them identify the value of their experiences, may lead them down a cul-de-sac of disillusionment and apathy.
What’s the Problem With Service-Learning in the English Context? There are some common issues at the heart of England’s tradition of active citizenship education and the more established tradition of service-learning. However, it is notable that there has been little explicit connection made
between these traditions in the citizenship education community in England. Although some organizations in the United Kingdom have “borrowed” from service-learning models established in the United States, it would be wrong to suggest that the English have simply adopted the best principles of service-learning and employed them under a different name. The absence of a shared language appears to deter practitioners from recognizing they are engaged in broadly similar endeavors. I suggest three possible reasons for this lack of connection. First, there may be issues related to language over substance. In the first place, the term service is not well understood in England; even U.K. academics do not understand the term and struggle to translate it into an equivalent English phrase (Macfarlane, 2005). One suspects it has connotations of an imbalanced relationship and has echoes of the phrase “being in service” (being employed as a servant) and “national service” (conscription). Second, there is also a deeper difference between the English and American contexts relating to expectations about the role of the welfare state and therefore of individuals’ responsibilities for themselves, their own families, and others in the community. The concept of service fulfills a specific role in the United States where, for example, philanthropic giving is seen as a more public act than would be generally accepted in the United Kingdom (Wright, 2002). Third, one might broadly perceive a trajectory within service-learning from a service orientation toward one in which the citizenship learning becomes a priority. In England, on the other hand, active citizenship has from the outset clearly been set within the context of citizenship education and within that political literacy has been a key dimension. While the current definitions of both traditions may be relatively close, the fact that the U.S. tradition has evolved from the very kinds of activities English educationalists were being warned away from (volunteering, giving, and helping) may also contribute to the skepticism. In reality, this perceived difference may actually just mask another similarity in practice. It is possible that many service-learning practitioners are actually still rather more focused on the service element (where service is defined as a form of charity or even more simplistically as “doing good for disadvantaged people”) than they are on the rigorous identification and assessment of learning. And, despite the best efforts of Crick to warn them away from this approach, the examiner’s reports on citizenship studies continue to demonstrate that many teachers in England have taken up relatively easy opportunities for their students to volunteer or raise money for charity (Oxford Cambridge & RSA, 2012). It seems the model of the good citizen still exists in tension with the active citizen, at least in some projects regardless of whether we call them active citizenship or service-learning.
392–•–IX. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
References and Further Readings Annette, J. (2008). Community involvement, civic engagement and service learning. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 388–397). London, UK: Sage. Assessment and Qualifications Alliance. (2012). GCSE citizenship studies: Report on the examination.. Retrieved from http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-41054-WREJUN12.PDF Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. British Library Board. (n.d.). Campaign! Make an impact. Retrieved from http://www.bl.uk/campaign Community Service Volunteers. (2013). About CSV, the UK volunteering and social action charity. Retrieved from http://www.csv.org.uk Crick, B. R. (1982). In defence of politics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Crick, B. R. (2000). Essays on citizenship. London, UK: Continuum. Crick, B. R. (2002). A note on what is and what is not active citizenship. Retrieved from http://archive .excellencegateway.org.uk/media/post16/files/033_ BernardCrick_WHAT_IS_CITIZENSHIP.pdf Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone. (Original work published 1938) Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Florence, Italy: UNICEF International Child Development Centre. Howard, R. W. (2006). Bending towards social justice: Servicelearning and social capital as means to the tipping point. Mentoring and Tutoring, 14(1), 5–15. Jacoby, B., & Brown, N. C. (2009). Preparing students for global civic engagement. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Creating opportunities for students to learn about and practice civic engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, R. (1994). Action competence as an educational challenge. Didaktiske Studier: Studies in Educational Theory and Curriculum, 12, 5–18. Jerome, L. (2006). Critical citizenship experiences? Working with trainee teachers to facilitate active citizenship in schools. Teacher Development, 10(3), 313–329. Jerome, L. (2008). Assessing citizenship education. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy. London, UK: Sage. Jerome, L. (2012). England’s citizenship education experiment: State, school and student perspectives. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Jones, S., Gilbride-Brown, J., & Gasiorski, A. (2005). Getting inside the “underside” of service-learning: Student resistance and possibilities. In D. W. Butin (Ed.). Service learning in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave. Keating, A., Kerr, D., Benton, T., Mundy, E., & Lopes, J. (2010) Citizenship education in England 2001–2010: Young
people’s practices and prospects for the future (Research Report DFE-RR059). London, UK: Department for Education. Kisby, B. (2012) The Labour Party and citizenship education: Policy networks and the introduction of citizenship lessons in schools. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Koliba, C. J. (2000). Moral language and networks of engagement: Service learning and civic education. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 825–838. Macfarlane, B. (2005). Placing service in academic life. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: How student voice in service-learning develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 154–169. Nelson, J., Wade, P., & Kerr, D. (2010). Young people’s civic attitudes and practices: England’s outcomes from the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) (Research Report DFE-RR060). London, UK: Department for Education. Oxford Cambridge, & RSA. (2012). GCSE citizenship studies: OCR report to centres. Retrieved from http://www.ocr.org .uk/Images/62884-examiners-reports-june.pdf Paul, E. (2009). Community-based undergraduate research: Collaborative inquiry for the public good. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Creating opportunities for students to learn about and practice civic engagement. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Potter, J. (2002). Active citizenship in schools: A good-practice guide to developing a whole-school policy. London, UK: Kogan Page. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2000). Citizenship programmes of study for key stages 3 and 4. London, UK: Author. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2008). Citizenship programmes of study for key stages 3 and 4. London, UK: Author. Ransom, L. S. (2009). Sowing the seeds of citizenship and social justice: Service learning in a public speaking course. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 4(3), 211–224. Stenton, S. (2004) Community action and young person led participation. In B. Linsley & E. Rayment (Eds.), Beyond the classroom: Exploring active citizenship in 11–16 education. London, UK: New Politics Network. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Wilczenski, F. L., & Coomey, S. M. (Eds.). (2007). A practical guide to service learning: Strategies for positive development in schools. New York, NY: Springer. Wright, K. (2002, January) Generosity versus altruism: Philanthropy and charity in the US and UK. (Civil Society Working Paper 17). London, UK: London School of Economics and Political Science.
PART X SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
52 HOLISTIC PARTNERSHIPS Sustainability, Learned Lessons, and Future Directions WALTER W. CANNON AND CHERI DOANE Central College
F
uture directions in sustaining service-learning and civic engagement must take into account the ways in which the academy listens to and accommodates the needs of the community. Over two decades of experience at Central College, a national finalist for The President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll in 2012, suggests that the academy must rethink the many hierarchical structures, intellectual paradigms, legitimizing forces, and even calendaring principles that stand in the way of real transformation. We discovered that nothing short of a Copernican shift would do: In order to reimagine our role as a mutually dependent part of the community, Central College needed to decenter itself. The holistic partnership model that follows from this new understanding of relationships acknowledges complexity and ill-structured problem solving three ways. The first is that listening is a holistic practice that takes account of needs driven by community outcomes and not solely by student learning outcomes imposed by the academy; that reverses hierarchies of knowledge to recognize the value of expertise acquired through experience; and that follows a community-generated time frame not limited to specific class hours, seat time, or even an academic year. The second is that marshaling cross-cutting resources is a holistic practice essential for effective and sustained service because this new work transforms the academy into simultaneous consideration of resources for the common good and of community assets for the education of our students. Finally, expanding notions of both service and learning is a holistic practice that calls forth new roles of civic
engagement for the academy. Institutions of higher education open to a continuum of service options dependent on community need, ranging from direct service to capacity building, will sustain the entire community by ensuring citizen engagement and the relevance of the academy. In the end, a holistic partnership with the community will enhance the academy’s ability to accomplish its larger educational mission and goals. Drawing on decades-long experience with servicelearning and civic engagement, this chapter reviews current issues and controversies and proposes principles by which community-identified needs rather than student or institutional goals are the impetus for programming direction and course design. The efforts at Central College make the case that as a result of listening to the community, the academy can provide authentic learning experiences that ultimately fulfill both student and institutional goals and in a much more mutually beneficial and sustainable way.
Current Issues and Controversies The Carnegie Commission, the Corporation for National and Community Service, and Campus Compact have documented much good work being accomplished as a result of highly informed and professional individuals within the academy, but the difficulties of delivering authentic service and ensuring learning that engages students with a complex understanding of service within the community 395
396–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
are real and must be addressed. Carolyn Ross and Ardel Thomas (2000), authors of Writing for Real, a popular textbook for use in college classes using service-learning, cite a number of issues surrounding the concept of service, all of which have the potential to lead to misunderstanding and devaluing service and propagating erroneous notions of how individuals work within the community. Issues of power and privilege, insider/outsider misunderstandings, noblesse oblige, and the idea of “giving back” to the exclusion of learning must at least be acknowledged in order for service to be authenticated beyond mere feel-good, recreational, spring-trip volunteerism that has the potential for long-term harm to the individuals in the community and to the students themselves. Monsignor Ivan Illich (1990) was perhaps the first with the audacity to question the effects of missionary zeal and speak out against the deafness that often comes with privilege, but others have followed. John W. Eby (1998) has raised good questions about a host of issues that threaten to undermine authentic service contributing to the common good. He noted that the motives for service are mixed, stemming from the needs of academic institutions, programs, and students themselves, but these motives potentially pervert service. Motives must come from the community rather than from the college and university or the students. The twin poles of service-learning suggest two potential problem fields: (1) how to ensure authentic service that does not compromise the larger community, the individuals in the community who are sometimes our most vulnerable members, the social service organization itself, and the leaders and mentors within various agencies; and (2) how to ensure sufficient learning that accurately defines the complexity of the service relationship, that works toward understanding the importance of public policy, that cultivates appropriate motives for service through selection and reflection, that extends the notion of community beyond physical boundaries, and that moves students to a deeper understanding of the role of the individual in the community.
Problems and Solutions As faculty members sit down to think about and write our syllabi, we are immediately confronted by the need to write student learning outcomes and goals established by the institution, the department, the major, the core, an accrediting agency, and our own sense of what a course is intended to accomplish. Then we are confronted by the constraints of the calendar, beginnings and endings, breaks and vacations, exam periods, the number of class meetings, seat time, and the accepted amount of work required both inside and outside of class. Furthermore, we need to consider the various kinds of evaluations and assessments that legitimize the educational experience: pen and paper examinations, demonstrations of competence through performance
or work accomplished, artifacts created. In short, the accepted hierarchies of the academy are the lens through which instructors or professors see the community and struggle to squeeze in the expansive, ill-defined messiness of the larger world “out there” when they consider how they might use service-learning. But our attempts to sanitize the world outside of the classroom to make it fit for student consumption often result in questionable “real” service and impoverished learning. Social service agencies operate in real-world time of 24/7 and do not get spring breaks at Daytona or even Des Moines. While it requires a new way of operating—and perhaps a new way of being beyond the ken of many colleges and universities—academics and especially administrators in higher education must at least explore what this Copernican shift might entail.
Practices and Methods for Holistic Partnerships: An Institutional Model Founded in 1853, Central College is a residential liberal arts college with a commitment to sustainability and a leader in international education and service-learning. More than 300 students participate each semester in course-based service-learning, and all of Central’s eight study-abroad sites have service-learning options for students. In 2012, Central was one of only 14 schools in the nation named as a finalist for the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll. Affiliated with the Reformed Church in America, Central College is located in Pella, Iowa, about 40 minutes from Des Moines, and has a student body of about 1,500. Mark Putnam (2012) of Central College pointed out that the convening power of the academy must be an essential part of its ongoing activity in order to fully engage us with the common good. “Many look to us,” he said, “ to play that convening role for purposes of brainstorming, celebration, coordination, negotiation, or resolution” (p. 61). The shift first requires authentic face-to-face listening. The Central College experience takes in the longstanding ethos of service that has been part of its mission statement, a supportive administrative structure, the establishment of a dynamic Center for Community-Based Learning, the development of more than 40 different courses using service-learning pedagogy, and an evolving and reciprocal relationship with more than 120 community partners. We discovered early that faculty members and the community need ongoing support and nurturing in order to ensure quality educational experiences for students, authentic service within our community, and practices that lead to continued civic engagement. Our current high levels of student, faculty, administrative, and community partner commitment are sustained by the following operating principles and best practices.
52. Holistic Partnerships–•–397
Listening Is a Holistic Practice Listening is at the heart of the Copernican shift. An important principle in the holistic partnership model is an authentic discovery process that allows us in the academy to hear the needs of our community partners. One of our long-standing community partners, Nate Monson, executive director of Iowa Safe Schools, has requested that colleges “[a]ctually have a conversation about the needs of an organization and what the purpose of the relationship is. And follow through on that” (personal communication, March 3, 2013). We have taken his suggestion and believe that everything that brings us together with our community is good: We have ongoing and meaningful conversations with the community through personal contact, memos and letters of inquiry, networking both formal and casual, think tanks, conferences of partners and leaders of community agencies, faculty visits to the community, hosting soirees and gatherings at local community sites and at the college, and convening civic dialogues with community leaders, policymakers, students, and faculty. The following are strategies that we have found useful at Central College: Conduct a formal audit of service providers in your local geographical area. Who are the agencies currently at work in your community and what are their needs? Before we piloted five service-learning courses, Central College conducted a yearlong study of all the social service agencies within a 50-mile radius of the campus to get a sense of what services were being provided, who was providing them, and what needs existed. This information allowed us to construct classes and students with community needs in mind. Engage in early and ongoing conversations between the academy and directors and leaders of community organizations and agencies. If your institution has an office of community-based learning, so much the better since the person in that office can find ways to sustain the relationship beyond the semester and the year. This is essential as the relationship needs ongoing reciprocity. Organizing miniconferences in the community during the summer or academic breaks is a great way for college professors to enter different physical and conceptual spaces and to meet the real people who will be mentoring our students. These opportunities are necessary if we are to discover the real community needs along with their constraints and limitations. Be persistent. While we have not had much success in getting the college to alter its drop and add period so that students might add credit hours during the semester as community needs arise, we have been able to offer variable credit for service-related options connected to courses. And despite innovations in online learning and other forms of experiential education we have not been able to change calendaring principles that might allow us to move in an entirely different space consistent with community needs. However, we have been able to sustain relationships with
community partners throughout the entire year because of an active Center for Community-Based Learning. It is essential to find a way to sustain relationships with community partners that go beyond the academic year and have one person charged with sustaining this connecting role.
Marshaling Cross-Cutting Resources Is a Holistic Practice When community agencies know whom to contact, it simplifies the process. According to another of our partners, Amanda Fletcher, executive director of Everybody Wins! Iowa, “having multiple points of contact can make things complex. It is valuable to have a department within the college that is tasked with working with nonprofit partners in order to develop sustainable relationships” (personal communication, March 7, 2013). Empower one campus office or department to serve as a primary liaison or “connector.” At the heart of an egalitarian partnership lies the necessity for holistic community listening, but this entails establishing a more fluid set of communication lines within the college or university. Our community partners have suggested several principles that ensure effective, respectful communication. Don’t bury the connector in administrative structure. At times, reporting lines or processes that are familiar within higher education serve to slow or completely inhibit progress. If community voice is valued by the institution, the community liaison or the connector on your campus needs to have the authority to make connections between and among community partners and with the appropriate level of administrative and other campus offices. Establish the credibility of the connector both inside and outside the academy. Aside from the requisite academic credentials helpful within the institution, the person must be seen as sympathetic to the needs of the community. The connector role must not be seen as compromised by public relations, evangelicalism, or other concerns extraneous to the mission of the community agencies. Ensure that connector position is sustained. Because communities are in flux, the academy can be seen as a stabilizing presence, and the longevity of the person in the connector role ensures a nuanced understanding of both the college and the community. National service positions are an excellent way to expand capacity of service-learning offices but turnover in the positions or the vulnerability of congressional action make these poor choices for the connector role. Ensure that the liaising office and the person in the connector role have access to resources across campus. Again, the ability to communicate directly with appropriate college officials, from the president and administrative staff to faculty and other teaching personnel, is essential.
398–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Efforts to marshal a variety of campus assets ring hollow if the office is uninformed about available resources. Help the academy understand that the connector cannot be working from the office all the time. Work rules established by a human resources office or some other entity might not have envisioned how this role is different from other staff positions. It is understandably necessary that the person(s) in the connector role spend a significant portion of their time physically in community.
Expanding Notions Both of Service and Learning as a Holistic Practice When we expand our notions of service, we reverse the hierarchies of knowledge to authenticate learning that takes place outside the academy. We can learn much from the literature on experiential learning of course, but we need to consider the power of ill-structured problem solving that service-learning sites offer. If we are listening to community needs, the problems our community partners are facing do not conform to nicely formulated patterns or have easy solutions. But if we and our students are open to the possibility that we can learn significant things outside of the classroom and the academy, we will be richer for the experience. We have found that this rich experience applies equally to capacity building service such as writing grant proposals or direct service such as working in a kitchen. Colin Burbank of the Catholic Worker House in Des Moines adds an authentic note when he asks “How can [students and faculty] have as much pride in pruned sink water arms as they do in writing a great paper? How can we get our students to flesh out their theology? This is something The Catholic Worker can provide” (personal communication, March 18, 2013). If we do our important work of helping to conceptualize the sometimes chaotic give and take of the workplace, we can help students make sense of their experiences. Consider the following best practices we have found useful:
students unpacked through written or oral reflection might even accomplish our objectives more effectively. Scholars, including Martha de Acosta (1995), Janet Eyler and Dwight Giles (1999), and Robert Bringle and Julie Hatcher (1999), have established the significance of reflection. Bringle and Hatcher (1999) remind practitioners that “Reflection activities must allow students to discover the value of dialogue, embrace the importance of perplexity in the learning process, and develop the ability to make meaning of personal experience” (p. 185). Service alone lacks the ability to help students connect the experience to course content, but when the service that meets community-identified needs is joined with context and thought-provoking reflection activities, the goals of all stakeholders are advanced.
Generate reflective protocols with course objectives in mind, but remember that open-ended questions are also important for exploring ill-structured problems that produce a rich opportunity for learning. Helping students unpack these events in face-to-face sessions is time consuming but an important part of the learning process. Often students enter the service relationship with little real-life experience so that interactions are categorized as “weird,” “awkward,” or just frustrating, but giving students different categories that move them outside of their selfabsorbed framework can transform an emotional impasse into a teachable moment.
Decentering the academy in the ways we have suggested helps students see knowledge being generated from places outside the classroom and helps them to understand the complexity of our various roles within an expanded notion of community. Eyler, Root, and Giles (1998) found that experienced service-learning students were indeed better able to understand complex social issues and suggest solutions. Just as expanding notions of service reverses hierarchies, so too expanding notions of learning affirms our community partners as co-educators and becomes another way to decenter the academy in order to reimagine service and improve the quality of learning. Eby (1998) has made the case that “service-learning brings together six sets of primary stakeholders; students, faculty, educational institutions, service recipients, community agencies, and communities” (p. 6) that must know each other fully in order to mitigate potential damage to individuals and the community. But we would like to add one more critical stakeholder: the individuals within the agency who actually end up mentoring our students. We in the academy who pride ourselves on thoughtfulness and on fully informed best practices must take the lead in accommodating the community, the agency, and the individuals (usually just one) within the agency who are charged with supervision and mentoring. Many of our partners enjoy taking on this role, and we and our students have benefited mightily from the generous way that they have allowed us to extend our classrooms into the community. They have become mentors and passionate role models for our students. This is all to the good; however, in many cases their supervision has become a burden as our students have come to them underprepared in attitude, information, and intention. We need to help our students become responsible and informed of the agency’s goals and mission and their unique role in the community. Consider the following best practices we have found useful:
Use community needs to help generate course content and establish educational objectives. Our experience and research has shown that we do not need to worry about compromised academic goals at all; the felt experiences of
Take responsibility to deliver rudimentary preparation for those students before unleashing them to work with vulnerable populations. Hold information sessions and encourage students to come to their community partners with a
52. Holistic Partnerships–•–399
basic understanding of ethical service and with as much information about the particular service agency as possible. Help community partners understand the reciprocal role in this process. At Central College, community partners play a role in the development of a required orientation; the end product includes information about confidentiality, cultural considerations, importance of agency policies, preexperience research, and reciprocity. In particular, students need help understanding the notion of service beyond the vague idea of “giving back” since students can learn a great deal from our partners outside the classroom.
Exemplary Course: English 344: Writing for Nonprofit Organizations Many examples of authentic service-learning courses could be adduced from the more than 40 offered at Central College, but perhaps the most thoroughly redesigned course incorporating our operating principles and best practices is an upper-level writing course. Even though the course had been using service-learning pedagogy for some years, the changes made as a result of the holistic partnership model have made a significant impact on the instructor, the students, the community, and on the college. It was designed initially as a result of a comprehensive audit of community needs and evolved from a writing course with an add-on “writing for the community” unit to a course that fully integrates the writing needs of the community with using writing as a way to interrogate notions of service, community, and civic engagement. Because numerous partners indicated they needed help with grant writing, the instructor developed a three-week grant proposal writing unit, and to date students have written grant proposals that have generated well over $60,000 for a variety of community organizations and agencies. A shorter unit on designing brochures was likewise developed as a result of many students having been asked to redesign or create new brochures. Increasingly students are being asked to help with Web design, and another short session has been added with the head of the information technology department to show students the basics of setting up a website. The students now use this as a platform for sending in assignments and the instructor uses it for electronic commenting; furthermore, students can use it as part of their portfolio to show future employers.
References and Further Readings Astin, A., Ikeda, E., Vogelgesang, L., & Yee, J. (2000). How service-learning affects students: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://heri.ucla.edu/pdfs/rhowas .pdf Birdsall, J. T. (2005). Community voice: Community partners reflect on service-learning. Retrieved from http://www
The last change involves an evening of civic dialogue, always held off-campus at one of the community sites, which brings together four to six community leaders who have been mentors for students during the semester. Because at least one of the results of service-learning should be an increased level of civic engagement, we are always interested in the way local problems are addressed and then solved by changes in policy or some form of direct action. The instructor wanted community leaders to recommend materials to read, or to write something themselves (and many have written op-ed pieces or other things that have appeared in print), that focused on community problem solving. Students come with prepared questions based on the readings suggested by the partners, and the dialogue that ensues is riveting. These evenings have become some of the best learning experiences in the class; students have said that they appreciated the passion and intelligence of the mentors and partners. Further, the appreciation that community partners express in being a “co-teacher” for the evening extends to their mentoring during the semester; these evenings of civic dialogue dramatize for all the stakeholders—community partners, faculty, and students—the power that comes from decentering the academy and listening to the community.
Conclusion It is important to recognize that effectively meeting a community need doesn’t always fall neatly within the college’s explicitly stated mission or goals. If we understand the potential for community engagement, colleges will be willing to collaborate with work that may, on the surface, seem to lie outside the college’s typical scope. But gathering people together to explore a community need, providing space, and even refreshments are simple things to do and allow the college to be a part of the resulting synergy. One example of this is simply being willing to convene community constituencies. Central College President Mark Putnam (2012) has argued that “[higher education’s] capacity to convene enables us to nurture civil society with intellectual discourse, informed action, and new ideas. Our best questions will come from a sincere attempt to elevate the conversation on our campuses and across society” (p. 63). Authentic service-learning pedagogy animated by a holistic partnership sustains civic engagement for all stakeholders.
.mesacc.edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue5/Birdsall .pdf Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in servicelearning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 179–185. de Acosta, M. (1995). Journal writing in service-learning: Lessons from a mentoring project. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 2, 141–149.
400–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Eby, J. W. (1998). Why service-learning is bad. Retrieved from http://www.messiah.edu/external_programs/agape/ servicelearning/articles/wrongsvc.pdf Eyler, J., & Giles D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J., Root, S., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1998). Service-learning and the development of expert citizens: Service-learning and cognitive science. In R. G. Bringle & D. K. Duffy (Eds.), With service in mind: Concepts and models for service-learning in psychology (pp. 85–100). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Fitch, P., Steinke, P., McCrae, A., Williams, A., Johnson, C., & Waldstein, F. (2000). Identifying success in model service-learning programs across Iowa. Des Moines: Iowa College Foundation Report. Honnet, E., & Poulsen, S. (1996). Principles of good practice on combining service and learning: A wingspread special report. Retrieved from http://www.servicelearning.org/
filemanager/download/Principles_of_Good_Practice_for_ Combining_Service_and_Learning.pdf Illich, I. (1990). To hell with good intentions. In J. C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning: A Resource book for community and public service (pp. 314–320). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential Education. Jacoby, B. (1999). Partnerships for service learning. New Directions for Student Services, 87, 19–35. Jacoby, B., & Associates (Eds.). (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Putnam, M. (2012, January/February). Are we asking the right questions? Change, 60–63. Retrieved from http://www .changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2012/JanuaryFebruary%202012/perspectives-abstract.html Ross, C., & Thomas, A. (2000). Writing for real: A handbook for writers in community service. New York, NY: Longman.
53 SITUATING ENGAGEMENT IN CANADIAN HIGHER EDUCATION HEATHER MCRAE University of Alberta
H
igher education is increasingly faced with challenges relating to global competition, reduced public funding, and competing demands from diverse stakeholders. In response to these pressures, many universities are reviewing their mission and role in relationship to teaching, research, and service. Community engagement is one approach being used by universities in collaboration with their communities in order to develop reciprocal and mutually beneficial partnerships to achieve positive social outcomes. The current literature on community engagement suggests that universities can support communities through establishing partnerships that promote knowledge creation and economic growth and address issues of concern to society. At the same time, engagement is met with some criticism from communities who question the equitability of the relationship and from community-engaged faculty whose work is not always recognized and supported within the institution. Based on the literature and on institutional examples, how is community engagement organized and situated within higher education? Does the degree of institutionalization within the university matter? What are some of the institutional organizational requirements for ensuring the ongoing sustainability of engagement? The aim of this chapter is to provide context for the establishment of organizational structures that support civic engagement, explore some of the types of structures evident in universities, offer suggestions, and raise questions relating to the sustainability of community engagement as a core function of the institution. Examples from a 2009 Canadian qualitative study, In Search of Common
Space: Exploring University Continuing Education’s Role in Civic Engagement, conducted by the author, will be used to illustrate the choices that universities and their communities are making about institutionalizing community engagement.
A Snapshot of Influences on CommunityEngagement Approaches in Canada The work of organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities has informed many of the approaches to community engagement in Canada. However, a variety of different organizational structures supporting engagement have emerged influenced by a number of factors such as the provincially mandated system for higher education, the lack of a national engagement classification system and funding provided through national research programs. Commencing in 1999, the federal government piloted community-research projects as a vehicle for addressing societal programs at the local and regional level. Other funded initiatives focusing on community issues such as the Small Health Organization Partnership Program and the Networks of Centers of Excellence soon followed stimulating interest in the development of processes and entities to support engagement. The Trent Centre for Community-Based Education and the Office of Community–Based Research at the University of Victoria are examples of centers developed specifically to support the community university partnerships and engaged 401
402–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
research (McRae, 2009). In the past few years, new approaches to engagement have emerged in Canada that focus on fostering dialogue, scholarship, and policy development and involve community partners in planning and implementation processes. Some of these approaches involve faculties and departments across the institution, while others support specific approaches to engagement such as community-service learning and communitybased research.
The Case for Institutionalizing Engagement Institutionalization occurs when an idea or practice moves from the margins where it is seen as peripheral to the work of the university to being a critical and sustained feature of the institution (Holland, 2009). Each institution’s governance, culture, resource-allocation model and core mission influences how engagement is positioned within the university. This individualized context of engagement encourages the development of differing approaches and helps to feature the unique attributes of each university and their community; however, it makes it difficult to make generalizations and compare engagement outcomes across institutions. The contextualized nature of engagement has also resulted in differing views about how engagement should be organized within the institution. For some, it is critical that community engagement be normalized as a central institutional practice to move engagement from an activity in the margins to being an integral part of the university’s identity and culture (Ward, Buglione, Giles, & Saltmarsh, 2013). Others claim that while the concept of engagement is compatible with the notion of a contemporary university, community engagement continues to be viewed as marginal affecting the positioning of engagement within higher education as well as how is it supported and funded (Benneworth, Charles, Hodgson, & Humphrey, 2013). Moving community engagement from the margins to a more centralized and institutionalized role in the university requires commitment and critical reflection of the values and purposes of the organization (Holland, 2009). Hans Schuetze (2012) suggests that it is important to include engagement in the mission statement and strategic plan, provide funding and other incentives to university personnel and recognize that both community-based research and service learning are valid academic approaches. Boland (2012) believes that the sustainability of community engagement in higher education is dependent on a number of factors, including commitment at the policy and institutional level, champions within the institution, and the development of an organizational culture that encourages and rewards meaningful engagement with community partners. In identifying their commitment to engagement, the University of Pennsylvania aligned their organizational structures, provided leadership, encouraged broad faculty participation from across the institution and established a
center for community partnerships that focused on universal issues of concern to improve conditions within the local community (Harkavy & Hartley, 2012). The literature on institutionalizing community engagement identifies differing viewpoints concerning how it should be organized and supported. Paul Benneworth, David Charles, Catherine Hodgson, and Lynne Humphrey (2013) claim engagement will only thrive within the institution when it fits or is clearly aligned with the universities’ existing core activities. Others suggest that commitment from faculty, students, and community partners are key to ensuring relationships are maintained and further developed. A case-study on university engagement identifies there can be a disconnect between senior management who are concerned with ensuring alignment of community engagement with strategic priorities and policies and faculty who are primarily focused on developing activities and research that supports the interests of students and community partners (Boland, 2012). There is no singular approach to institutionalizing engagement; what is evident is the importance of commitment based on the contextualized nature of the university and their community partners.
Guidelines for Institutionalizing Engagement The institutionalization of community engagement requires more than top-down or bottom-up support. Elaine Ward, Suzanne Buglione, Dwight Giles, and John Saltmarsh (2013) provide five approaches for institutionalizing community engagement: 1. Engaged knowledge generation that is applied, problem centered, entrepreneurial, and networked 2. Clear understanding of the characteristics and values of community-engaged scholarship 3. An integrated role for faculty that includes teaching, research, and service 4. Knowledge generation that occurs in different ways and with multiple stakeholders 5. Aligning community engagement with the institutional identity, mission, place, work, and reward policies
Institutionalizing engagement requires changes to the organization’s culture that will allow members of the university as well as their community partners to view engagement as an integrated and flexible way of approaching teaching, service, and research. Ira Harkavy and J. Matthew Hartley (2012) believe that a focus on both structure and ideology is required in order to drive institutional change. The transformation of the University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee from a fragmented institution to an engaged university included leadership from senior management; conversations with faculty, staff, and community leaders;
53. Situating Engagement in Canadian Higher Education–•–403
an examination of priorities; and practice in the development of new kinds of collaborations (Brukardt, Percy, & Zimpher, 2006). Strategies that may be helpful to guide the transformation of universities include the establishment of new types of frameworks and organizational structures.
Frameworks for Guiding the Institutionalization Process Over the past ten years, a variety of frameworks and tools have emerged that identify and classify approaches to community engagement and provide a way to assess engagement activity and impact. These organizational tools are generally organized as checklists, indicators, benchmarks, rubrics, matrices, and systems. Checklists provide institutions with a snapshot of their engagement activities that can be compared to specific questions or principles. Indicators identify the best practices or qualities important in the development of an engaged university offering a pathway for future development. Benchmarks are often similar to indicators; however, they also allow for regular assessment against the identified criteria. Rubrics feature a standardized scale for measuring engagement and gaining understanding about the level of institutionalization within the university. In a similar way, matrices focus on providing information about engagement activities in relation to specific factors. While other tools address specific practices relating to engagement, system approaches address the development and efficacy of broader goals for the institutional commitment to engagement. In order to illustrate the range of models used to measure engagement, three examples are outlined in greater detail in the following sections: the Carnegie Classification system, the Holland Matrix, and The Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education.
The Carnegie Elective Classification for Community Engagement Introduced in 2005, this elective classification system focuses on identifying universities with a commitment to community engagement. Unlike previous classifications initiated by the Carnegie Foundation that use national data, this classification relies on documentation and data provided by the institution (Driscoll, 2009; Ward et al., 2013). In developing this classification, Carnegie purposefully chose a broad definition for community engagement to promote a wide range of thinking about the kinds of collaborations that could be developed between higher education institutions and the community. This approach allows for a diversity of activities and perspectives and acknowledges the contextualized nature of community engagement. The initial classification was based on consultation with national leaders, results from benchmarking and
institutional assessment studies, and a pilot study involving 13 higher education institutions (Driscoll, 2009). Five primary indicators of community engagement were identified for inclusion in the classification: community engagement as a priority in the institutional mission, executive leadership and support, infrastructure, budgetary support, and support for faculty members involved with the community (Driscoll, 2009). Institutions applying for the classification were required to provide indicators identifying their institutionalization of community engagement and include data and examples of either curricular engagement or outreach and partnerships or both. Over 140 higher education institutions in the United States applied for consideration. Seventy-six institutions were approved for the Carnegie elective classification on community engagement. In 2010, a revised classification was introduced that required evidence of involvement in both curricular engagement and outreach and partnerships (Carnegie Foundation, 2012). The next classification is scheduled for 2015. Frameworks such as the Carnegie Elective Classification for Community Engagement have assisted institutions with gaining recognition and visibility. Participation in the classification has ensured greater transparency and provided external and internal acknowledgement of the work as well as an opportunity for further examining the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches (Driscoll, 2009; Ward et al., 2013). Furthermore, universities that applied for the classification included an inventory of their engagement activities. This provided an opportunity for universities to review their activities and benchmark their progress over time (Thornton & Zuiches, 2009). An important feature of the elective classification is that it provides an assessment of the broader institutional approaches to community engagement helping institutions with their strategic planning processes. However, unlike other classification systems, the contextualized nature of engagement and how it is reported in this classification makes it difficult to compare data across universities (Ward et al., 2013). Other assessment tools such as the Holland Matrix and the Selfassessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education focus on the development of specific activities and actions that can further each institution’s vision of an engaged campus.
The Holland Matrix According to Barbara Holland (1997), the matrix functions as a tool to support institutional planning, decision making, and evaluation. The purpose of this framework is not to judge the efficacy of the institution’s approach to engagement but rather to provide a guide for comparison between the ideal and the current reality. It incorporates seven factors: mission; promotion, tenure and hiring; organizational structure; student involvement; faculty
404–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
involvement; community involvement; and campus publications. Each of these factors is rated based on the level of commitment to engagement. From Holland’s (1997) perspective, an established unit with appropriate funding and support not only promotes and sustains commitment to engagement but also functions to improve student and faculty perception of flexibility and access.
The Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education Focusing on one activity within the communityengagement umbrella, this rubric identifies five key dimensions for service-learning: philosophy and mission; faculty support and involvement; student support and involvement; community participation; and partnerships and institutional support (Furco, 1999). Specific components are linked to each of the dimensions. The components are then associated with stages of development including critical mass building, quality building, and sustained institutionalization. The rubric allows institutions to develop service-learning over time, engage in discussions relating to local needs and contexts, and measure their progress toward institutionalizing this form of engagement. Institutional support for service-learning includes the need for a coordinating entity, a policy-making entity, staffing, funding, administrative support, and evaluation and assessment (Furco, 1999). The rubric was revised in 2002 to include a departmental-support component acknowledging the role of departments in advancing service-learning (Furco, 2002). In recent years, a number of different types of rubrics and models for assessing the activities and approaches to community engagement have emerged. Some of these frameworks were designed to specifically assess benchmarking and measurement within the institution, such as Building Capacity for Community Engagement: Institutional Self-Assessment (Gelmon, Seifer, KauperBrown, & Mikkelsen, 2005). Others have been adapted from business and management, including those used in identifying the strengths and weakness of technology transfer programs involving universities and industry and the assessment of engagement based on organizational theories.
Organizational Models for Situating Community Engagement According to Holland (2009), the type of structure chosen should reflect the primary engagement focus of the institution. Other factors should also be taken into consideration, including the alignment of institutional policies and practices, infrastructure support, and connecting faculty and
staff interests with engagement goals (Brukardt et al., 2006). Jennifer Pigza and Marie Troppe (2003) identify three types of organizational models for situating community engagement: concentrated, fragmented, and integrated.
Concentrated Models Concentrated models feature an office or a center with a specific focus such as community-based research or service learning. In the majority of concentrated models where there is academic leadership, the focus is on research and learning, whereas units that primarily feature student experience or community relations tend to be placed within student services or external affairs (Holland, 2002). There are many benefits to a concentrated structure, including accessibility, less duplication, ease of communication, and visibility. Moreover, this center of expertise approach is consistent with established models within higher education. In their examination of engaged campuses, Carole Beere, James Vortruba, and Gail Wells (2011) provide an example of concentrated model that features high visibility, distinctive leadership, broad campus support, and advocacy for the establishment of campuswide engagement activities. One of the main challenges associated with this model is that activities tend to be limited by the expertise of those within the unit, affecting the ability of community partners to access the broader resources of the university. As a result, the relationship between the university and the community tends to be one directional (Pigza & Troppe, 2003). In some universities, specialized engagement units are isolated from the traditional research and teaching functions, limiting the range and impact of engagement (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008).
Fragmented Models Fragmented models are characterized by activities that are located in various areas of the institution. This model provides community partners with access to many resources within the university; however, the potential for duplication and limited communication often results in beliefs that the university is disorganized (Pigza & Troppe, 2003). Furthermore, the responsibilities for developing and managing engagement within decentralized units can result in limited or reduced involvement from other faculties and departments and confusion on the part of community members who are unsure of where to go and who to talk to (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008).
Integrated Models According to Pigza and Troppe (2003), integrated models provide the greatest opportunity for reciprocal relationships between the university and community. This model combines the structural attributes of a concentrated unit
53. Situating Engagement in Canadian Higher Education–•–405
with a system for integrating engagement through academic and nonacademic departments in the university. Responsibility for engagement is shared throughout the institution, while coordination is maintained by a number of key individuals (Pigza & Troppe, 2003). This allows for engagement activities to be distributed throughout the university while ensuring the ongoing relationship with community partners is maintained. This hub approach to institutionalizing engagement has a number of strengths, including visibility, achieving a broad reach across faculties and departments that promotes multidisciplinary collaborations; facilitating connections with community partners; and sharing engagement experiences and successes. The University of Minnesota and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) are examples of an integrated model. The University of Minnesota (2012) showcases a Ten-Point Plan for Advancing and Institutionalizing Public Engagement that features a centralized office, identifies key senior management staff as champions, and aims to position the institution as an engaged university. At Penn, the development of a center that focuses on partnership development, the allocation of grants and resources to support faculty and community work, and leadership from the president’s office along with planning and advocacy to further engagement efforts are all part of a coordinated and coherent approach to institutionalizing engagement (Harkavy & Hartley, 2012). Smaller institutions have advantages given that engagement work is more visible, can generally involve faculty and staff from across the university, and may be more easily observed and reported on (Holland, 2002, 2009). However, David Weerts and Lorilee Sandmann’s (2008) study of urban research universities suggests that the diffuse approaches championed by a mix of senior management, deans, faculty, students, and staff can result in the development of an integrated structure. Despite the challenges inherent in organizing engagement, institutions of all sizes could benefit from community engagement’s contribution to enhancing institutional diversity due to the development of new kinds of partnerships and knowledge exchanges (Holland, 2009).
partnerships is the key to ensuring that communityengagement activities are consistent with the needs and interests of both the university and the community. They promote establishing a coordinating mechanism that ensures maximum impact and efficiencies relating to aligning projects across partnerships. In their view, this approach ensures both innovation and relevance on the part of universities and their communities. Penn State University institutionalized a number of integrating mechanisms to ensure effective communication and coordination of their outreach activities and to establish engagement as central to both the vision and work of the university (Alter & Book, 2001). Since 2008, a number of universities in Canada have established entities such as an office or center as a focal point for faculty and community members interested in collaborative research and to assist with facilitating and brokering partnerships. Many of these centers are currently in transition or in early phases of development. An example of one university’s journey in establishing an effective engagement model is provided below.
Institutionalizing Engagement at the University of Victoria The University of Victoria (UVic) is a comprehensive university located on the west coast of Canada. The vision for community engagement is presented in the university’s strategic plan as multidimensional, involving communities of interest located locally, regionally, nationally, and globally, along with faculty from a number of different disciplines (University of Victoria, 2007). In order to assist with implementing the objectives identified in the strategic plan, the Steering Council on Civic Engagement was formed, reporting to all four vice presidents. To ensure breadth, the council was comprised of individuals representing a wide range of interests rather than specific constituencies (McRae, 2009). The Steering Council organized a Task Force on Civic Engagement with the mandate to identify specific objectives and timelines for civic engagement based on the goals identified in the university’s strategic plan. Task force members recommended four core objectives:
Coordinating Mechanisms for Engagement 1. Providing service-learning opportunities
Coordinating mechanisms for establishing and promoting engagement include a high-profile position or team dedicated to furthering engagement through advocacy, leadership, and organizational support. This work also involves facilitating communication with university members and community partners; supporting individual and organizational learning; and ensuring there is a collective vision for engagement (Alter & Book, 2001). Amanda Wittman and Terah Crews (2012) suggest that the development of a cultural and structural framework that supports
2. Integrating teaching, learning research, and engagement 3. Contributing to building social and intellectual capital 4. Achieving national and international recognition for leadership and scholarship in civic engagement (Davis, Hall, Hamilton, & McRae, 2007)
A number of initiatives were developed or expanded in response to these goals, including the service-learning internship program, coursework focusing on experiential
406–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
learning, and the establishment of a new unit: The Office of Community Based Research (OCBR). The mandate of this office was to support partnerships with the community to improve economic, social, and environmental wellbeing. Through linking community and faculty expertise and student learning with local and regional issues, the OCBR was instrumental in facilitating research outcomes relating to food security, aboriginal health, sustainability, and community mapping. The concentrated model of the OCBR allowed for visibility and encouraged community involvement. However, after a number of years, the lack of coordinating mechanisms to link the work of the OCBR to administrative and faculty-wide interests and institutionalize the office as an integrated feature of the university was evident. In 2012, university and community stakeholders were consulted regarding an expanded vision for the OCBR. These discussions culminated in the creation of an interfaculty research center with increased support and recognition from the university. The purpose of the Institute for Studies and Innovation in Community-University Engagement is to facilitate the co-creation of knowledge through community-based research initiatives and partnerships for the betterment of society. In order to enhance the work of faculty, students, and community partners, a research partnership knowledge mobilization unit was established to facilitate the partnerships, develop agreements, and support knowledge mobilization (University of Victoria, 2013). The process of institutionalizing community engagement at UVic was developmental and emergent, and influenced by multiple factors, including the personalities of key players, interests of the community, funding support, and best practices from other institutions. As noted on the website, “this new unit represents a thoughtful and comprehensive approach toward meeting UVic’s commitment to improving society through research and creative activities” (University of Victoria, 2013).
Networks as a Unifying Force In past years, a number of networks focusing on engagement have emerged worldwide. These networks are initiated at local, regional, national, and global levels and focus on a number of different themes, including knowledge mobilization, building community capacity, and strengthening relationships (Watson, Hollister, Stroud, & Babcock, 2011). Many of the networks were initiated in response to changes in higher education policy and have been successful in achieving opportunities for public discourse (Watson et al., 2011). In Canada, networks for community service-learning, community-based research, community development, and community-engaged scholarship are providing opportunities for mutual learning, support, and discovery and connecting faculty, staff, and
members of the community to both local and national issues of concern (Table 53.1). Community engagement is focused primarily on local and regional partnerships and initiatives. However, the emergence of national and global networks suggests there is interest in sharing ideas and experiences. Can networks be used to scale up engagement policies and practices to have greater transnational effects? Are more purposeful and nationally connected collaborations needed in order to address some of the challenges in society such as homelessness and poverty?
Conclusion Community engagement is dependent on the interests of and support from each institution. There is no standardized framework in Canada for measuring or assisting with establishing engagement policies and practices. While individual universities could establish a benchmarking system, they must begin by developing an institutional understanding around the various approaches, terminology, infrastructure support, and types of partnerships used in community engagement, requiring a commitment of time and resources. Furthermore, there is no requirement for an office or coordinating body to drive the community-engagement agenda. Generally, community engagement in Canada is situated peripherally within the university; in some universities there appears to be disconnection between the ideas of the senior administration and the activities of faculty and staff. However, recently a number of organizational structures have emerged that place engagement closer to the core activities of the university embracing an institution-wide coordinated approach. Limited core funding is evident; funding approaches identified in the literature and on websites are different for each institution. Further investigation is required to determine if the approaches adopted by each institution will be sustainable over time. Successful community engagement requires more than good institutional intentions (Benneworth et al., 2013). To effectively situate engagement, it is important that universities embed it into the fabric of their universities rather than relying on the interests of specific individuals or positioning engagement in the margins (Beere et al., 2011). In order to ensure there is ongoing commitment to community engagement, it needs to be seen by institutional and community members as one of the core activities of the university, aligned with the strategic mission of the institution and integrated with research, teaching, and service. This engaged-university approach allows for the establishment of an organizational-wide culture committed to supporting the evolution of engagement and ensuring that it becomes a part of the institution’s DNA.
53. Situating Engagement in Canadian Higher Education–•–407
Name
Focus
Website
CACSL: Canadian Alliance for Community ServiceLearning
For students, educators, and communities interested in supporting the growth and development of service learning in Canada
www.communityservicelearning.ca/en
CBRC: CommunityBased Research Canada
For academia and community members interested in building partnerships using research as tool for mobilization
www.communityresearchcanada.ca
GACER: Global Alliance on Community Engaged Research
A Canadian-initiated network that engages existing networks and individuals interested in advancing common global interests relating to mobilizing community-university partnerships to advance democratic social and environmental change
www.gacer.org
CES: Community Engaged Scholarship Network
A partnership of eight Canadian universities working together to change university culture, policies, and practices relating to the recognition and reward of community-engaged scholarship
www.cescholarship.ca
CCED: Canadian Community Economic Development Network
A member led organization focusing on strengthening communities through using community-based social economic approaches
www.ccednet-rcdec.ca/en
CSSHE: Canadian Society for Studies in Higher Education
The Affinity Group on Community Engagement is a member-based group that explores and collaborates on issues relating to the scholarship of engagement
www.csshe-scees.ca
Table 53.1
Engagement Networks in Canada
References and Further Readings Alter, T., & Book, P. (2001). The engaged university: Reorganizing to serve the public good. Metropolitan Universities, 12(3), 30–40. Beere, C. A., Votruba, J. C., & Wells, G. W. (2011). Becoming an engaged campus: A practical guide for institutionalizing public engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Benneworth, P., Charles, D., Hodgson, C., & Humphrey, L. (2013). The relationship of community engagement with universities’ core missions. In P. Benneworth (Ed.), University engagement with socially excluded communities (pp. 85–101). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media. Boland, J. (2012). Strategies for enhancing sustainability of civic engagement: Opportunities, risks, and untapped potential. In L. McIlrath, A. Lyons, & R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 41–60). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Brukardt, M. J., Percy, S. L., & Zimpher, N. L. (2006). Moving forward along new lines. In S. L. Percy, N. L. Zimpher, & M. J. Brukardt (Eds.), Creating a new kind of university: Institutionalizing community-university engagement (pp. 3–22). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). Classification description. Retrieved from http:// classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/ community_engagement.php Davis, J., Hall, B., Hamilton, C., & McRae, N. (2007, December). Making a difference: An action plan on civic engagement at the University of Victoria. Report of the Task Force on Civic Engagement. Victoria, BC, Canada: University of Victoria. Dierker, B., Cao, Y., Burton, L., Kuhl, M., & Furco, A. (2010). Tools for the institutionalization of public engagement. Retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/document.doc? id=3024 Driscoll, A. (2009). Carnegie’s new community engagement classification: Affirming higher education’s role in community. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 5–12. Furco, A. (1999). Self-assessment rubric for the institutionalization of service-learning in higher education. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Service-Learning Research & Development Center. Furco, A. (2002). Self-assessment rubric for the institutionalization of service-learning in higher education (Rev. ed.). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Service-Learning Research & Development Center.
408–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Gelmon, S. B., Seifer, S. D., Kauper-Brown, J., & Mikkelsen, M. (2005). Building capacity for community engagement: Institutional self-assessment. Seattle, WA: CommunityCampus Partnerships for Health. Retrieved from www .ccph.info Harkavy, I., & Hartley, J. M. (2012). Integrating a commitment to the public good into the institutional fabric: Further lessons from the field. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(4), 17–36. Holland, B. A. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 4, 30–41. Holland, B. A. (2002). Private and public institutional views of civic engagement and the urban mission. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 13(1), 11–21. Holland, B. A. (2009). Will it last? Evidence of institutionalization at Carnegie classified community engagement institutions. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 85–98. Jacoby, B., & Associates. (Eds.). (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McRae, H. (2009). In search of common space: Exploring university continuing education’s role in civic engagement (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada. Pigza, J. M., & Troppe, M. L. (2003). Developing an infrastructure for service-learning and community engagement. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 106–131). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schuetze, H. (2012). Universities and their communities— Engagement and service as primary mission. In L. McIlrath, A. Lyons, & R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 61–80). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Thornton, C. H., & Zuiches, J. J. (2009). After the engagement classification: Using organizational theory to maximize
institutional understandings. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 75–83. University of Minnesota, Office of Public Engagement. (2012). A ten-point plan for advancing and institutionalizing public engagement at the University of Minnesota. Retrieved from www.engagement.umn.edu University of Victoria. (2007). A vision for the future: Building on strengths. Retrieved from http://web.uvic.ca/strategicplan/pdf/strateticplan.pdf University of Victoria. (2013). Office of Community Based Research. Retrieved from web.uvic.ca/ocbr Ward, E., Buglione, S., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Saltmarsh, J. (2013). The Carnegie Classification for community engagement: Helping create the “new normal” in American higher education? In P. Benneworth (Ed.), University engagement with socially excluded communities (pp. 285–308). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media. Watson, D., Hollister, R. M., Stroud, S. E., & Babcock, E. (2011). The engaged university: International perspectives on civic engagement. New York, NY: Routledge. Weerts, D., & Sandmann, L. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 73–106. Wenger, L., & MacInnis, A. (2011, June). Inventory of tools for accessing university capacity, support for, and outcomes of community/civic engagement and community-engaged scholarship. Retrieved from http://cescholarship.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/Assessment-Tool-Inventory_ June-29_2011_with-cover.pdf Wittman, A., & Crews, T. (2012). Engaged learning economies: Aligning civic engagement and economic development in community-campus partnerships. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/ sites/default/server_files/files/Engaged-LearningEconomies-White-Paper-2012%20FINAL.pdf
54 DEPARTMENT-DRIVEN STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINING SERVICE-LEARNING AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LOIS-ANN KUNTZ AND MEGHAN WILSON DUFF University of Maine at Machias
T
his chapter provides strategies for making servicelearning and community engagement (SL/CE) sustainable within a department through curriculum design, administrative support for faculty, development of long-term community partnerships, and strengthening commitment to SL/CE across campus. General guiding principles and some specific recommendations are offered on how best to support and encourage the development of a community-engaged department along with implications for campus administration, departments, faculty members, and staff. This chapter assumes that readers have prior knowledge of SL/CE. All the department-level strategies described consider the needs and impact on key participants in SL/CE: the students, the community partner, and the faculty, even if the corollary is not stated. The experiences detailed in this chapter are derived from a small, rural university that serves both traditional and nontraditional undergraduates on campus and at a distance. The campus has the Carnegie Community Engagement elective classification as well as being designated as a small public, environmental liberal arts university. The department’s community partners consist of campus, local, regional, national, and international collaborators. Though there is no “one-size-fits-all,” the resources and materials included in this chapter may be adapted to fit unique campus needs. In planning, recognize that not everything needs to start at once and that first steps are not final steps. We recommend that departments build on current initiatives, plan for change based on collective feedback, and adapt to environmental forces (i.e., money, personnel, changes in the community or on campus).
Department-Level Strategies for Sustainability In order for a department to be engaged in the community, adding value to both the institution and the community, faculty must work together to redesign the curriculum and support transforming the department focus to one of public work (Wergin, 2002). In the last two decades there has been a movement of engaged departments representing a wide range of disciplines. For example, the California State University System began with 12 participating departments (Vogelgesang & Misa, 2002) and more recently the Northern New England Campus Compact supported 19 engaged departments in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont (Howe, DePasquale, Hamshaw, & Westdijk, 2010). Campus Compact (CC) is a national organization with state and regional affiliates that support SL/CE in higher education, including the previous engaged department examples. (For further information on Campus Compact, please see the annotated resource list.)
Developmental Curriculum Design One recommended method for curriculum revision is using a developmental design to scaffold students’ professional skill development as they progress through their degree and prepare for their capstone course (Howe et. al., 2010; Zlotkowski, 2002). The goal is to provide a road map and rationale for the embedded SL/CE courses to guide students and maximize their success. Departments should be strategic about where they include SL/CE in the curriculum 409
410–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
for several reasons. Choosing specific courses allows faculty to make sure students are adequately prepared so they are challenged and not overwhelmed. It also helps faculty know which skills students should already have and which skills they should be developing in a particular SL/CE course. Another benefit of revising the curriculum is that department faculty can make sure neither faculty nor students will end up with too many SL/CE courses in any given term to accommodate the additional workload (Howe, et al., 2010). These considerations increase sustainability by avoiding fatigue, limiting unpredictability, decreasing the likelihood of negative experiences, and enhancing collegiality within a department. It is recommended that the courses chosen for SL/CE be required for all majors and be taken at distributed key points in the curriculum. First-year students should get basic SL/CE experiences in introductory courses that can
Course
Who Structures
Project Time Span & Example
include first-year seminars where they are introduced to community partners, volunteer as an entire class for a short-term project, and broaden their awareness of the relationship between course content and community needs. Midlevel SL/CE courses require students or student groups to take more responsibility for the community partner contact, as well as project development and management. Senior students will draw on their earlier coursework, including SL/CE experiences, for a capstone project that involves them developing their own collaboration with a community partner around an issue of importance to them, as shown in Table 54.1. Taking the example of the University of Maine at Machias, the faculty in the psychology and community studies department employed a curriculum revision process. The faculty invited students and community partners into this revision process by asking for feedback and
Student Experience
Target Skills & Knowledge for SL/CE
Introductory Courses—Exposure* PSY 102 Personal Growth (also FirstYear Seminar)
Teacher & Community Partner
Brief class project: Campus— making blankets for domestic violence shelter/ Online—various donations
Volunteering; building awareness
Introducing SL/CE philosophy & practice, meet community partners, and practice reflection
CMY 101 Intro to Community Studies
Teacher & Community Partner
Brief class project: Interviewing representatives from different community groups
Meeting community partner & interviewing; building awareness
Introducing SL/CE philosophy & practice, meet community partners, and practice reflection
Midlevel Courses—Capacity Building* PSY 211 Intro Behavioral & Community Mental Health Systems
Teacher/ Community Partner or Community Partner/student group
No specific SL/ CE Project
Submitting a resume & cover letter for a mock application assignment; Community Partners as guest speakers
Connecting with Career Services on campus; basics of applying for a job/internship; understanding importance of networking & community connections
PSY 311 Social Psychology
Teacher/ Community Partner or Community Partner/student group
Several weeks groups of 3–5 students: Food Pantry Fundraiser with student clubs & athletics
Having a creative, collaborative role in designing or implementing a project
Students taking more responsibility for the creative application of course material in the design of the project; awareness of group dynamics and one’s role in the group
54. Department-Driven Strategies for Sustaining Service-Learning and Community Engagement–•–411
Course
Who Structures
Project Time Span & Example
Student Experience
Target Skills & Knowledge for SL/CE
Upper Level Courses—Responsibility* COE 313 Community Experience
Teacher & Community Partner develop internships
Term Length; Internship is 4 hrs. per week Seminar 1.5 hrs. per week
Supervised training and work experience; Reflective component in professional seminar; Discusses Senior Project
Experience of the mutual benefit of volunteering, professional experience and feedback; opportunity for a reference; networking with local service providers; interviewing skills and how to frame SL/CE experienced for graduate school or employment applications
SSC 320 Research Methods & Design
Teacher & Community Partner
Term Length; Needs Assessment Survey for Early Developmental Therapy for community agency
Conducting real-word research for community partner
Students taking more responsibility for the creative application of course material in the design of the project; awareness of group dynamics and one’s role in the group; refining professional communication skills with Community Partner/Client.
BEH 450 Senior Project
Student & Community Partner, Teacher & Classmates as consultants
Term Length; Main focus of course: Organized community meetings on local food issues with agency that focuses on regional food insecurity
Connecting with a community partner that they wish to collaborative with on a term-long project
Bringing together course content from major, personal and professional interests, and collaboration skills to create a project that has community impact and can be highlighted on graduate school and employment applications.
Table 54.1
Developmentally Sequenced SL/CE Curriculum Examples
SOURCE: Lois-Ann Kuntz and Meghan Wilson Duff. The terms exposure, capacity-building, and responsibility come from Carrie Howe, Kim DePasquale, Kelly Hamshaw, and Kate Westdijk’s (2010) language from their 3-Phase Model for Service Learning Curriculum.
suggestions based on their SL/CE experiences in department courses. Through this process, faculty learned that not all students understood the purpose of SL/CE or were aware of the benefits. To respond to this concern, faculty now discuss the philosophy and goals of SL/CE, as well as the benefits and challenges, in every class with an SL/CE project. This helps motivate students by making sure that the intentionality, goals, and benefits of SL/CE are obvious and they observe faculty model the behavior of reflective learners.
Faculty Training and Support All faculty engaging in SL/CE projects, including contingent and online instructors, need training and support given the additional demands. Academic units interested
in SL/CE should take advantage of many low-cost, highquality trainings and workshops given by national, state, and regional CCs. For example, CC has faculty consultants who will visit campuses to work with discipline specific faculty on designing SL/CE projects or courses. The state of Maine CC is offering an online training course for faculty on how to infuse SL/CE into online courses. Methods for both online teaching and SL/CE projects are demonstrated and each faculty member develops a course blueprint (Laine, Kuntz, Hudzina, & DeForest, 2012). To enlist current faculty members to participate in SL/CE it is constructive to include students and community partners who have previously benefitted from SL/CE courses in discussions/workshops, provide evidence of learning outcomes, and supply professional
412–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
development (Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002). Another recommendation for sustaining engaged departments is recruiting faculty candidates who have experience offering SL/CE courses or a willingness to develop them. Hopefully more graduate departments and professional organizations will promote SL/CE as part of professional preparation. In order for faculty and departments to develop and sustain SL/CE practice, it is critical that administrators provide support and acknowledge the added value to campus (Furco & Holland, 2004). This value includes benefits to student learning, retention, and recruitment, improving community relations, and demonstrating community impact. One way some institutions support faculty integrating SL/CE into courses is with a coordinator or an office to provide training and networking. For faculty on a tenure track, SL/CE teaching strategies must be seen as valuable by both the institution as well as the individual. If administration is supportive, there are a number of advantages in participating in SL/CE on a tenure path. Some potential strategies for faculty success with SL/CE are (Kuntz, 2007) as follows: • Determine if there is explicit recognition of SL/CE in campus tenure and promotion guidelines. • Use Campus Compact faculty consultants in your area of expertise for technical support. • Find campus funding supporting course design and redesign. • Discuss your plans with other faculty, supervisors, and administrators. • Find colleagues for collaboration. • Prepare for additional time demands. • Articulate SL/CE expectations to students. • Find public relations opportunities showcasing your SL/CE projects. • Identify academic publishing venues in your discipline or the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. • Develop an action research plan spanning courses and semesters.
Potential beneficial outcomes of SL/CE for faculty members personally and professionally include the following: • Provide opportunities to model creative problem-solving skills for students. • Establish solid teaching evaluations and stronger relationships with students. • Lay the foundation for alumni becoming community partners. • Make stronger connections with other faculty and administration. • Build deeper connections with community. • Obtain scholarship and grant funding. • Be recognized via campus teaching and service awards. • Secure letters of review for tenure portfolio that tie service to the community with teaching. • Continue learning experiences keeping life interesting!
Sustaining Community Partnerships Developing strong relationships with community partners is an important strategy for sustaining department-driven SL/CE. Strong SL/CE partnerships often start with faculty and the community partner having a shared interest and contact in another setting, such as supporting each other’s grant proposals, attending nonprofit board meetings, and participating in community events. As faculty and community partners work together over time both on non-SL/CE work and SL/CE projects, they gain a better understanding of each other’s goals, needs, and constraints. As community partners have more SL/CE experiences, they are often motivated by the impact of these projects and by student energy and ideas. Seasoned community partners, who have experienced SL/CE successes and weathered project failures, are very helpful in encouraging and orienting potential new community partners. Though students are critical partners in SL/CE, faculty and community partners are more likely to have a long-term relationship since students’ time is limited by graduation; therefore, faculty would be wise to give special attention to maintaining relationships with community partners. Another important feature of SL/CE is that community partners and faculty need to model being reflective and open to learning from other’s observations and input. This can be a powerful learning experience for students who struggle with feedback. Faculty initiating these collaborations need to actively invite and utilize positive and constructive feedback from community partners, as well as provide feedback. These conversations help community partners by normalizing the experience and emphasize the collaborative nature of the work. Since SL/CE is both a dynamic process and a collaboration, it can be a challenge for faculty who are used to having more control over their course projects and schedule. Planning to be flexible and preparing for the unexpected is important for all parties. Some predictable collaboration challenges include scheduling, difference in expectations, lack of awareness of partner’s constraints, and communication challenges. How to address these issues and use these challenges is grist for the learning mill. Maintaining clear communication and scheduling in-person or virtual meetings with multiple people are part of many SL/CE projects and an important transferable skill for after graduation. If faculty and the community partner have been clear about the level and amount of contact needed during the SL/CE project, the instructor can determine how much is their own responsibility and how much is the students’ responsibility based on the course level and the learning outcomes. Important to sustaining community partnerships is documenting, promoting, thanking, and celebrating (Kaye, 2010). Documentation can include collecting examples of impact (for example, hours of service, how many families served, or funds raised, etc.), pictures of students and
54. Department-Driven Strategies for Sustaining Service-Learning and Community Engagement–•–413
community partners or the project (for example, a community mural), as well as testimonials from the community, community partners, and students. This material should be saved so the department can assess the projects, present their impact, and promote or improve public relations for the school and the community partners’ organization. The collected data, pictures, and testimonials can help with attracting new community partners, gathering community support, obtaining grants and funding, as well as helping students and alumni recognize the impact of their contributions. Thanking partners should be both public and personal. The students can send the community partner a thank you note including what they most appreciated about the experience. Faculty should also personally thank the community partner. Public campus or community events, in which community partners are recognized, is another powerful way to thank current community members and potentially inspire others. These celebrations amplify the experience and allow everyone present to recognize the work that has been done, what has been learned, and the impact on the community (Duff, 2011).
Administratively Supporting the Anchoring of SL/CE Across Campus To derive the full benefit for SL/CE on campus, administrators must support both the disconnected SL/CE experiences across a campus and the structured SL/CE curriculum within departments (O’Meara & Niehaus, 2009). Though faculty, students, and community partners are the keys for success and sustainability, SL/CE needs to be supported by administration and anchored both horizontally (i.e., general education requirement, elective Carnegie Community Engaged Campus classification) and vertically (i.e., department, courses) (Falk et al., 2013; Furco & Holland, 2004; Gallini & Moely, 2003). A single engaged department will have limited overall impact on student learning without the philosophy and practice extending broadly across a campus. Indeed, both horizontal and vertical reaches of engagement offer complementary paths serving campus, students, and community. The process of becoming an engaged department is time intensive; by some calculations this development generally requires five to seven years (Furco & Holland, 2004). The timeline for the authors’ development was three years of dedicated work by faculty (full-time and contingent), various students, the part-time service-learning coordinator, the division hair, and the president of academic affairs, all of whom built upon previous efforts of the campus and major. It therefore comes as no surprise that several research projects have indicated a lack or perceived lack of institutional support to be one of the biggest challenges for the process of undertaking an engaged department (Furco & Holland, 2004; Howe et al., 2010; Vogelgesang & Misa, 2002).
Conclusion: Community Engaged Departments Are Worth the Effort The strength of an engaged department is faculty working together in a continuous, reflective, and creative process. This process is informed by student experiences, alumni reflection, community partner input, and faculty ideas. Some examples of possible areas for further development include structuring a financial aid work-study position, applying for an AmeriCorps VISTA position to support data collection and assessment, capturing the economic impact of the work on the community, creating a formal advisory board of community partners for departmental evaluation, and developing a long-term SL/CE project that would allow upper-level students to mentor first-year students. Whatever next steps an engaged department may take will develop both from the collaborative process and which areas are most ready for growth. Converting to an engaged department is worth the effort of the cultural transformation that helps sustain the collaborations at the heart of SL/CE by shifting “from one of ‘my work’ to one of ‘our work’” (Battistoni, Gelmon, Saltmarsh, Wergin, & Zlotkowski, 2003). One benefit of an engaged department is that faculty support one another in this work. The phrase our work captures the combined efforts of students, faculty, and community partners along with support of administration that makes SL/CE possible. Students graduate with skills in professional communication, networking, and collaboration, as well as potential employment references from community partners. They experience the impact of their efforts. Community partners gain support for their organizations’ missions and renewed energy and inspiration from students. They are also shaping the future workforce. Faculty benefit from invigorated teaching, continued learning, and a means to engage publicly as representatives of their discipline. Faculty can also integrate service, teaching, and scholarship (Boyer, 1997) while continuing to develop their own skills while teaching and modeling these skills for their students. Though students graduate and faculty and community partners may move on and new ones arrive, it is the engagement department that is the backbone for inspiring and supporting these collaborations and is the key to sustaining SL/CE work.
Resources Campus Compact, www.compact.org Campus Compact is a member organization for colleges and universities that provides networking, technical support, funding, conferences, regional meetings, and other resources to support SL/CE work. The main Campus Compact site lists various current initiatives, as well as resources for faculty, SL/CE staff, students, and college
414–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
presidents. There are links for “Books and Publications” and “Events, Jobs, Grants, and More.” From the national Campus Compact site, state and regional affiliate sites can be accessed. Campus Compact state affiliate sites vary, but each generally includes information on local programs and initiatives, resources, and events. Becoming a Campus Compact member is a great way to access local or regional trainings which may be discipline based while gaining support and making connections with regional schools and faculty working on incorporating SL/CE into classes, departments, and across campus. Creating the Engaged Department, http://www2 .acenet.edu/resources/chairs/docs/Wergin.pdf If looking for guidance on gathering faculty within a department for an engaged department effort, Jon F. Wergin (2002) is a great resource. This article provides guidance on recruiting faculty within a department to work collaboratively. Faculty frequently work as individual agents and Wergin gives thoughtful persuasive arguments that preserve autonomy while making a convincing case for collaboration in an engaged department. The Engaged Department Toolkit This publication is part of Campus Compact’s Engaged Department Initiative and written by Richard Battistoni, Sherril Gelmon, John Saltmarsh, Jon Wergin, and Edward Zlotkowski (2003). It is meant to be a starting point for transforming to an engaged academic department. This toolkit includes practical information for faculty that want to incorporate SL/CE into their courses and scholarship, as well as into the department’s culture, curriculum, learning outcomes, and assessment. It also includes sample action plans and assessment strategies, in addition to a section on helpful strategies and avoiding common barriers.
References and Further Readings 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. Battistoni, R. G., Gelmon, S., Saltmarsh, J., Wergin, J., & Zlotkowski, E. (2003). The engaged department toolkit. Providence, RI: Campus Compact. Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Duff, M. W. (2011). Modeling collaboration: Developing strong service-learning partnerships. Presented at the National Council on Social Sciences Annual Conference, December 2011, Washington, DC.
Committing to Community Engagement, www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ Committing-to-Community-EngagementFINAL-1_28_11.pdf This publication presents the findings of the 2007–2010 Northern New England Engaged Department Initiative (Howe et al., 2010). It includes lessons learned from the Engaged Department Initiative framed as challenges and strategies associated with the cultural change involved in becoming an engaged department. Chapter 3 includes tools and strategies from the initiative including suggested considerations when starting curriculum revision, developing an action plan and evaluation, getting an idea of current activities and attitudes, determining potential changes in the curriculum, developing meaningful partnerships, providing professional development, addressing resistance, celebrating success, and questions to consider for sustaining change. Appendices include a 3-Phase Model for ServiceLearning Curriculum and an example of learning outcomes that integrate SL/CE from one of the participating schools. The Engaged Department Initiative of Northern New England Resources, www.compact.org/initiatives/ engaged-department-and-faculty-rewards-initiativesof-the-northern-new-england-campus-compacts This Campus Compact page includes many resources and samples from the participating schools that were part of the Engaged Department Initiative for the Northern New England region. The initiative’s goals and outcomes are listed. The Howe et al. (2010) publication is accessible, as well as a study on SL/CE and retention and a manual for a Faculty Rewards workshop to help campuses in the process of adjusting tenure review to support SL/CE work. Participating campuses’ sample syllabi, engaged department action plans, and faculty reward action plans are accessible. There are a variety of majors, minors, departments, programs (i.e., First-Year Seminar program), and academic disciplines represented in the sample plan materials.
Falk, A., Politano, A., Brammer, L., Dumlao, R., Hollander, E., Knutson, E., Poehnert, J., & Werner, V. (2013). Core competencies in civic engagement. Journal of Service Learning in Higher Education, 2 [Special Section]. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/jslhe/index.php/jslhe/ article/view/59 Furco, A., & Holland, B. A. (2004). Institutionalizing servicelearning in higher education: Issues and strategies for chief academic officers. In M. Langseth, W. M. Plater, & S. Dillon (Eds.), Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and servicelearning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gallini, S. M., & Moely, B. E. (2003). Service-learning and engagement, academic challenge, and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(1), 5–14.
54. Department-Driven Strategies for Sustaining Service-Learning and Community Engagement–•–415 Howe, C. W. (Ed.), DePasquale, K., Hamshaw, K., & Westdijk, K. (2010). Committing to community engagement: The engaged department initiative in northern New England. Published by Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont Campus Compacts. Kaye, C. B. (2010). The complete guide to service learning: Proven, practical ways to engage students in civic responsibility, academic curriculum, & social action. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Kuntz, L. A. (2007, September 26). Prepared for getting tenure or promotion with a community-engaged portfolio panel discussion. Presented at Strengthening University and Community Through Engagement Conference, Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, Maine Campus Compact, UM Center for Teaching Excellence, Hermon, ME. Laine, E., Kuntz, L. A. Hudzina, M., & DeForest, C. (2012). The Fusion Project: Integrating service-learning and online learning. Presentation at Sloan C Conference, University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine.
O’Meara, K., & Niehaus, E. (2009). Service-learning is . . . How faculty explain their practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 17–32. Vogelgesang, L. J., & Misa, K. (2002). The engaged department institute and the California State University: Progress, process and challenges. Final Report to the Community Service Learning Office, Office of the Chancellor, Interagency Agreement # A000184, UCLA Award #00709– 001. Retrieved from http://www.calstate.edu/cce/initiatives/ documents/full_report.pdf Wergin, J. F. (2002). Creating the engaged department. The Department Chair, 13(2), 1–3. Zlotkowski, E. (2002). Introduction. In E. Zlotkowski (Ed.), Service learning and the first-year experience: Preparing students for personal success and civic responsibility [Monograph No. 34] (pp. ix–xiv). Columbia: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
55 BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE Community as Colleague CAROL WICKERSHAM Beloit College
I
t is time to reconceive campus-community partnerships as collegial collaborations rather than as servicelearning partnerships. Drawing on the literature and my own experiences as both a community partner and faculty member, I will discuss the ways that collaborative collegiality differs from current conceptions of campuscommunity partnership and show why this improves student learning. Because I have considerable experience on both sides of campus and community fence, I draw on my own observations and that of my colleagues from both spheres. The fact that the style and content of this chapter vary from more traditional academic literature is illustrative of one of the main points I make: In embracing communitybased learning, the academy must also consider how to respectfully partner with those whose expertise is differently derived and manifests in substance and forms which diverge from those of the academy. My use of the first person and personal observations are illustrative of wider patterns, not merely anecdotal. This chapter intentionally straddles the divide between campus and community, with a foot firmly planted in both worlds.
The Problem The 2012 report from the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future, is just the latest in a long litany of calls for higher education to incorporate substantial beyond-the-classroom
experiences as an integral part of an undergraduate degree. Of course, the role of experiential education has a storied history, from medieval apprenticeships through the pedagogy of John Dewey, Jane Addams, and Paulo Freire. However, while professional and vocational education have always viewed hands-on, place-based education as necessary, liberal arts educators have often viewed outside-the-classroom learning as secondary to the degree seeking endeavor (Fish, 2008). Recently, however, scholars have sought to conceptualize liberal arts and experiential education as complementary rather than opposing pedagogies (Menand, 2012; Westerberg & Wickersham, 2015). Called by various names—service-learning, experiential education, cooperative education, public scholarship, community-based research, and civic engagement—the perceived value of beyond the classroom learning continues to increase (Eyler, 2009; National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012). Demand is not only driven by recognition of pedagogical value but is also responding to clear calls from employers (The Chronicle and American Public Media’s Marketplace, 2012), as well as from anxious students hoping to ensure that their considerable investments in tuition will lead to postgraduate opportunities. My own institution, Beloit College, recently instituted an experiential-education requirement for graduation, and we are not alone. Membership is rising in organizations that seek, catalog, and provide resources to institutions committed to integrating classroom and experiential education, for example, Campus Compact, the Presidents’ Honor Roll for Service 417
418–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Learning, the Carnegie Classification, and National Society for Experiential Education. Rising demand for beyond-the-classroom learning has increased the need for campus-community partnerships delivering quality educational opportunities. Since the 1980s, the most common conceptualization of these partnerships, particularly at an undergraduate level, has been heralded by the 1989 Wingspread Conference and resourced by publications such as the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Service-learning assumes a reciprocal partnership between the campus and community; but scholarship has overwhelmingly focused on the benefits and challenges for higher education. Community partners’ perspectives are usually addressed only as afterthoughts, though recent scholarship has sought to remedy this, especially with partnerships geared toward research (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Ferrari & Worrall, 2000; Simons & Cleary, 2006; Stoecker, Tryon, & Hilgendorf, 2009). Despite increasing awareness of the need to understand how service-learning impacts the community and then to structure it in a respectful way, practice still falls short of intention. Even the term service-learning contributes to disparity: one partner is seen to provide service, while the other is served (Stoecker et al., 2009).
Perspectives From Each Side of the Fence How the Academy Views the Community While higher education relies increasingly on community partners, the community’s value as both classroom and teacher is seldom acknowledged (Jones, 2003). The language may refer to service, but the reality can be unwitting exploitation of field sites by students and their institutions (Eby, 1998). For instance, the community is often perceived as having interesting problems for academics and their students to study and write about. Sometimes the communities themselves are viewed as problems to be solved and student service as ameliorative. John P. Kretzmann and John L. McKnight’s (1993) seminal work on community development and the helping professions unpacks the damage that can be done when communities are defined primarily in terms of their deficits rather than assets. While some in academia approach communities as sources of insight rather than ignorance (Delano-Oriaran, 2012; Glasson, 1997), others continue to send students into the community with little preparation to and vague instructions to “to do good and learn” (Eby, 1998; Stoecker et al., 2009). I have known professors who sent out their students to reform aspects of communities which they labeled as repressive or ignorant before the students ever set foot in those communities. Thus, students are set up not to learn from the community partner but to remake the community to fit their classroom understandings (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). Students frequently use community opportunities to fill blank spots on their resumes or philanthropy-hours quotas
for campus organizations. Similarly, faculty may assign a few hours of service at a community site as a way for students to apply or inform their classroom learning. The community is often not informed about these intentions, and the students are often not well prepared for their encounters (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000).
How Community Partners View the Academy When asked, community partners say that they see themselves as providing service, in addition to receiving it (d’Arlach, Sánchez, & Feuer, 2009; Miron & Moely, 2006). My own experiences on both sides of the fence confirm that, while the relationship is usually reciprocal, with students usually providing valuable service, community partners always provide educational opportunities. If we think about it, this is not surprising because the educational mission is why the academy seeks out the partnerships in the first place. Personal Stories From Both Sides of the Fence In the 1980s, before the current popularity of servicelearning, I was the pastor of a congregation within an easy commute from nine seminaries; thus, we were much sought after as a community placement site. Initially, I did not realize the value of my, and my community’s, expertise. We were flattered to be asked, but after supervising a couple of students, we became acutely aware of the amount of time it took to teach well-meaning, but inexperienced students—even when things went smoothly. Most frustrating was the lack of information about what the students were supposed to be learning. At this early juncture, not long out of graduate school myself, it didn’t occur to me that I should be helping shape the logistics and goals. In addition, I had no idea what the students already knew about ethical expectations or professional boundaries—let alone matters of faith. The unspoken assumption was that their presence with us was meant to hone all of it—whatever it was. This was further complicated by the students’ understanding that their role was to serve, rather than learn from us. One example illustrates the downside of this. My congregation was recruited by a regional seminary as a field site for a service-learning intern, a senior who needed the position to graduate and be ordained, though the request was shaped as an offer of free help. After a few weeks, it became clear that her agenda was to reform the church’s retrograde ways. Armed with the latest theological jargon, she went to work on both worship and the youth group. My suggestion that she might learn from us met with stiff resistance. She already knew what a church should look like, and we weren’t it. Eventually, with worship attendance down and parents refusing to let their teens attend the youth group, the church board asked her to leave. At that point I finally heard from the school, seemingly surprised that we were not grateful for the free help they had
55. Both Sides of the Fence–•–419
provided. There was no acknowledgement of the cost in terms of the time involved in supervision or to deal with the fractiousness her service-learning engendered. Nonetheless, even after this and similar experiences, the community and I usually said yes to requests. Partly, we were loyal to the denomination but, more importantly, we believed we had something to impart. In other words, while we were taken for granted as instrumental cogs in the academic machinery, this was not how we saw ourselves. Later, I found myself on the other side of the fence as a faculty member seeking field placements for my students. I approached a nonprofit organization that provided farmbased education. Their director was less naive than I had been and initially rebuffed me. He told me that many institutions of higher education were seeking out bucolic, organic experiences for their students, but, when students arrived, they found that shoveling manure, weeding in the hot sun, and juggling financial spreadsheets was more like work than Eden. It took a lot of time to train and supervise students who had never worked at all, let alone on a farm. They would argue about when, why, and how to do tasks. He quoted a student who said, “I’m going on spring break, so I’ll just plant the cucumbers when I get back.” Only when I agreed to negotiate schedules, teach the basics of professionalism, and troubleshoot problems would the farm agree to a trial period. The director of the nonprofit said to me, “We’re doing this because we know that students can’t learn about organic agriculture without hands-on experience, so we’re making an investment in future farmers.”
Conceptualizing Campus-Community Collegiality How Collegiality Differs From Other Forms of Partnerships In The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1947), Max Weber discusses collegial partnerships as one way to organize power and authority. He notes that collegial partnerships differ from bureaucratic partnerships in significant respects. Bureaucracy promotes efficiency through specialization and limits on discretion, while collegiality is self-defining and self-limiting, granting both authority and discretion to those who are members of the collegium. Weber (1928) claims collegiality weakens bureaucracy: “Collegiality unavoidably obstructs the promptness of decision, the consistency of policy, the clear responsibility of the individual, and ruthlessness to outsiders in combination with discipline within the group” (p. 280). In other words, colleagues are viewed as insiders. As insiders, they not only implement policy, they create it; they not only espouse jargon, they define it; they not only respect boundaries, they establish them. Sociologists have much to say about how all communities define their boundaries by establishing norms and defining deviance. They use various informal and formal
mechanisms, such as educational requirements and credentials. Those who meet the standards belong to the community; they are colleagues. Professional communities, such as medicine, law, and higher education, have clearly prescribed requirements that the initiate must acquire. The line between insiders and outsiders is quite bright. In recognition of their expertise, those within the collegium are granted status and discretion that is withheld from those outside. For instance, only those who pass the bar can practice law. Higher education could not be clearer about the nature of their community. The roots of their self-referential vocabulary make it evident that professors are members of a profession, full colleagues. Higher education is a community with formal and rigidly defined boundaries between outsider and insider: tenure is the boundary. Nontenured members of the community have peripheral standing and do not enjoy full collegial status. This gets tricky when the academy looks to community partners to provide educational experiences which the college cannot. Tenured faculty are not only limited by their classrooms and campus settings, but also by their very training. To claim that students’ educational experiences are not complete without community-based learning is to state the need for colleagues with expertise derived outside the academy and differently credentialed. Of course, collegiality does not erase differentiation. Colleagues differ in terms of status, task, and disciplinary approach; however, to consider a partner to be a colleague is to regard these distinctions to be secondary to the shared enterprise. The differences are ones of degree and the approaches are regarded as complementary. And once granted collegial status—insider status—partners then have the responsibility and right to help shape the enterprise itself. Complementary Ways of Knowing Academic knowledge is tested through a process of attack and defend. This is most clear when a PhD candidate defends a thesis. It is an excellent way to test ideas for robustness, but it is not the only way. Communities use a different process to establish meaning and what they claim to know. Social learning theorist Etienne Wenger (1998) has studied communities as systems that create meaning through social interactions. He calls these systems “communities of practice” and describes how membership in a community grants the legitimacy and, thus, the right to participate in the negotiation of shared meaning. Communities of practice are another way to discuss the dynamics of collegiality. Communities or collegiums patrol their boundaries. Like a cell wall that repels toxins but admits nutrients, they must be selective in order to maintain health, deciding who is in and who is out, what is acceptable or not, and together they decide what makes sense—sometimes with conscious, formal sanctions, but often without.
420–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Thus, a student who enters a community field site, planning to argue a point of view or prove a point as is expected in class discussions or papers, is in for a surprise. A student is predisposed by the very nature of the academic enterprise to think the job is to persuade the community to see his or her point of view. They may want to change the way community members think or practice, not understanding the relationship between the two. I have seen students critique how people discipline their children or express their sexuality and even lecture them on what to eat while students are guests at the table. They often do this with the very best of intentions, informed by what they have learned in class, and they often do this unconsciously because this is what they have been trained to do and what has been modeled for them (Menand, 2012; Shulman, 1997). However, the community will not react to a student’s well-supported arguments as the academy does. As the community’s guest—an outsider—the student lacks the legitimacy to help construct community norms. Additionally, culture and meaning are not constructed in most communities through argument, rather it accrues through shared practice (Wenger, 1998). When communities feel under attack, they become defensive and hold the attacker at bay. This is the opposite of what students need if they are to learn from a community. This dynamic is illustrated by an encounter described in a student’s field notes: I was lucky to be able to go with my supervisor to a meeting of people who provide assistance to sexual assault survivors, but I felt really out of place. First of all, they didn’t look like feminists. Some had long, fake nails and some wore frilly, flowery dresses or tight embroidered jeans. I was really surprised to hear them talk about how much they hated the label “feminist.” I tried to talk to one of the women about this, and she said that feminists were anti-men and anti-Christian. I told her that was not true, that I was a feminist and I didn’t feel that way, though I admit I am an atheist. I shared with her some of what we had talked about in class. She said, “Good for you,” with a tight, sort of smile, and she didn’t talk to me for the rest of the meeting.
By explaining the differences between classroom and community-based ways of knowing, students can both make more sense of their encounters and negotiate them more gracefully and effectively. Practitioner-Scholars My position within the academy, both as a community partner and as a nontenured, semipermanent member of the faculty, has led me to describe myself as a practitionerscholar. This descriptor, sometimes reversed as “scholarpractitioner” is defined as “an ideal of professional excellence grounded in theory and research, informed by experiential knowledge, and motivated by personal values, political commitments, and ethical conduct” (McClintock, 2004). Or more to the point, a practitioner-scholar is one
who has a “primarily practice-based approach to inquiry” (Hoshmand & Polkinghorne, 1992). This term has come into use fairly recently, however the concept of knowledge which derives from experience which informs theory, rather than theory which explains experience has a long and storied history rooted in philosophical pragmatism manifest in educational theory going back to Charles Sanders Peirce, Dewey and, most especially, Addams (Barone, Maddox, & Snyder, 1997). The practitionerscholar approach to knowledge and learning is most apparent in professional training (Shulman, 1997), but I am intentionally expanding the notion to encompass thoughtful practitioners in all fields who may or may not have connections with the academy, but whose practice is informed by the historied corpus and growing edges of their professions: public school teachers, business owners, social service providers, and elected officials, to name a few. I work with many of these practitioner-scholars and I am bold to count myself among them. And I am not alone. Most campuses have those who are asked to teach because of expertise and experience in nonacademic realms, though the practitioner must also be able to operate within the broad norms of the academy. Not all practitioners can teach, but many have as much training in teaching as tenured faculty, whose training may include little or no training or practice as teacher. A PhD is, after all, a research degree. On the other hand, I work with community partners who are principals of schools, lead workshops for businesses, and facilitate diversity training for government and nonprofits—all roles that require significant teaching. While many practitioner-scholars (or community partners) characterize their interactions with students as teaching, the academy has been slow to understand the interaction this way. Even within the academy, there is a chasm between the liberal arts, which characterize education as imparting pure knowledge, and the vocational and professional schools that teach application. Given this split within the academy, where colleagues tend to be similarly trained and credentialed, it is unsurprising that collegiality is not extended to community partners whose expertise comes from elsewhere. Harvard professor Louis Menand (2010) describes this divide between the true knowledge of the liberal arts versus applied knowledge and then dismisses the rivalry by saying, “The divorce between liberalism and professionalism as educational missions rests on a superstition: that the practical is the enemy of the true. This is nonsense” (p. 57). Lee Shulman (1997), writing for the Carnegie Foundation, also rejects the divide. In his essay, “Professing the Liberal Arts,” he contends that the vocational or pragmatic does not corrupt the liberal arts canon as many fear, but rather enhances it. “The key to preserving the liberal arts is to profess the liberal arts” (p. 164). In this construction of the educational enterprise, practitioner-scholars would become “faculty” in liberal arts contexts, just as practicing physicians, lawyers, and social workers become clinical professors in professional schools. Shulman says, “The field of
55. Both Sides of the Fence–•–421
practice is the place where professions do their work and claims of knowledge must pass the ultimate test of value in practice” (p. 154). This is increasingly true for all colleges and universities as we expand beyond-the-classroom opportunities into an integral part of all students’ education.
An Initial Experiment With Campus and Community Collegiality Beloit College’s Duffy Community Partnerships (Duffy), now in its tenth year, is an academically rigorous, community-based, sociology course, open to sophomores through seniors averaging 16 students per semester, one third of whom are sociology students. Students apply and are selected based on academic competence and interest in community-based work and learning. Each student is recommended for placement at a field site that fits their academic and professional goals. They complete 90 hours during the semester and participate in a weekly seminar. The specific tasks, learning objectives, and hours are negotiated in conversations with their community partner and the course instructor. In addition to work on site, students have significant reading and writing assignments focusing on the sociology of institutions and community dynamics. The course also incorporates significant interdisciplinary perspectives bolstered by the support of faculty colleagues from across the disciplines who consult with students on their literature reviews. Ten years ago, I was invited to serve as a visiting sociology instructor and coordinator of the Duffy because of my expertise outside of the academy working on social justice and community-organizing projects—in other words, my practitioner-scholar status. In addition, the academy had tested my fit within their community when I taught one course for several semesters as a visiting lecturer. From the outset, I viewed the community partners with whom I work as colleagues, fellow practitioner-scholars, though the wider institution does not necessarily see them as such. I would even go so far as to call them adjunct faculty, albeit unpaid, for I contend that we cannot teach our students what they need to learn without the help of these community experts. Full collegiality is still a long ways off, but, together, we have moved in that direction. For instance, in their work with the Duffy Partnerships, my community colleagues interview and help select students, set learning goals, establish schedules, and provide assessments. I, as the instructor, provide the community partners with copies of the texts we are reading in class and ask for their suggestions. During the semester, I meet at least once on site with each pair of community colleagues and their students to debrief and set goals. Twice a semester the community partners provide evaluations that offer insight into their perception of their roles as teachers. (Pseudonyms are used for the discussions of students that follow.) The director of a local social
service agency wrote, “When I asked Trudy what was most beneficial to her in doing the Duffy, she stated it was to test out what she had learned. I’m glad I was here to help. Thank you for the opportunity to help teach.” Or a leader in the business community commented, “It has been very interesting to work with Miguel. He was not the only person who has learned something! As an international student, he was eager to compare approaches to community development in his country with ours. I think all of us in the office helped him to grow in his understanding and as a young professional.” Of course, my role and responsibilities as a college instructor, and those of my community colleagues, differ in many important respects. Because I have been on their side of the fence and value their authority and expertise, I am extremely respectful of their time constraints and priorities. I know that their lines of accountability differ from my own, as do their schedules, so I make it my job to help the two contexts mesh as smoothly as possible. Most importantly, I attend to communication and endeavor to have my students and faculty colleagues do the same. This is not always easy or a foregone conclusion. In the past three years, my work at Beloit College has expanded. I am now the director of community-based learning. In this role, I help to broker partnerships between faculty in all disciplines with community colleagues. Sometimes, there is a learning curve when college faculty do not approach the community in a collegial manner. One source of conflict is the failure of some college faculty members to recognize K–12 teachers as equals. For example, according to one school principal, a professor assumed he could bring some of his students to work with classes at a school with very little advance notice. When his call was not promptly returned, he was irritated. Although both the principal and the professor were highly trained professionals in their respective communities, their status did not hold sway outside of their own realms. The professor’s assumption that his call would be quickly returned and that his students would be granted access revealed that he had little understanding of the constraints under which the principal operated. From her perspective, his insistence bordered on disrespect. Of course, most collisions between community and faculty colleagues are not this clear or extreme, but this illustrates the need to construct intentional, mutual, collegial relationships between campus and community.
Challenges and Opportunities As the demand grows to incorporate community-based learning as an integral part of higher education, it is critical to go beyond viewing community partners in an instrumental way. This chapter has been an attempt to look at the underlying dynamics of campus-community relationships to best foster student learning. The challenges are many. It can be deeply threatening to open a collegial community to
422–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
new members. What is suggested here is not to scrap the culture, credentialing mechanisms, or standards in either the academy or wider communities, but to develop ways to see the academy and these many communities as sharing the goal of teaching. This shared goal will necessitate and continue to evolve through shared practice. At this respectful intersection, the differences between higher education and the community would be secondary to the educational mission, and the partners would meet at a point of equal status, with differing, but complementary, approaches. There are still unresolved issues, such as compensation. It is tempting to say that student service is fair compensation for the community practitioner-scholars’ time and
expertise, but this is not always the case, especially with short-term student involvement. Additionally, there will continue to be logistical challenges, including schedules and communication. However, there will be ample motivation to overcome the barriers if these three aspects of campus-community partnerships are valued: the dynamics of communities of practice, the expertise of practitionerscholar colleagues, and complementarity ways of knowing. Broadening the collegial circle to include practitionerscholars will enhance learning as students become nimble at appropriately and effectively transferring understandings between classrooms and communities, thus enhancing knowledge in both realms.
References and Further Readings
mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. McClintock, C. (2004). The scholar-practitioner model. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. J. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 393–396). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Menand, L. (2010). The marketplace of ideas: Reform and resistance in the American university. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Miron, D., & Moely, B. E. (2006). Community agency voice and benefit in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(2), 27–37. The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http:// www.aacu.org/crucible Shulman, L. S. (1997). Professing the liberal arts. In R. Orill (Ed.), Education and democracy: Re-imagining liberal learning in America (pp. 151–173). New York, NY: College Board Publications. Simons, L., & Cleary, B. (2006). An evaluation of academic service-learning: Student and community perspectives on lessons learned. In K. M. Casey, G. Davidson, S. H. Billig, & N. C. Springer (Eds.), Advancing knowledge in service learning: Research to transform the field (pp. 113–135). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Stoecker, R., Tryon, E. A., & Hilgendorf, A. (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning moving from doing for to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 767–780. Weber, M. (1928). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Westerberg, C., & Wickersham, C. (2015). More than community-based learning: Practicing the liberal arts. In E. Chamlee Wright (Ed.), Liberal learning and the art of self-governance (pp. 71–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
Barone, D. F., Maddox, J. E., & Snyder, C. R. (1997). Social cognitive psychology: History and current domains. New York, NY: Plenum. The Chronicle and American Public Media’s Marketplace. (2012). The role of higher education in career development: Employer perceptions. Retrieved from http:// chronicle.com/items/biz/pdf/Employers%20Survey.pdf Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 28–34. 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. Delano-Oriaran, O. (2012). Infusing Umoja, an authentic and culturally engaging service-learning model, into multicultural education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 403–414. Eby, J. W. (1998). Why service-learning is bad. Retrieved from http://www.messiah.edu/external programs/agape/servicelearning/articles/wrongsvc.pdf Eyler, J. (2009). The power of experiential education. Liberal Education, 95(4), 24–31. Ferrari, J. R., & Worrall, L. (2000). Assessments by community agencies: How “the other side” sees service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 35–40. Fish, S. E. (2008). Save the world on your own time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Glasson, J. (1997). Unwrapping gifts: Instituting an assetoriented culture at a community college. In T. Pickeral & K. Peters (Eds.), Tensions inherent in service-learning (pp. 1–66). Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. Hoshmand, L. T., & Polkinghorne, D. E. (1992). Redefining the science-practice relationship and professional training. American Psychologist, 47(1), 55–66. Jones, S. R. (2003). Principles and profiles of exemplary partnerships with community agencies. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for servicelearning (pp. 151–173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and
56 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION A Cautionary Tale SARAH EDWARDS AND NANCY EDICK University of Nebraska at Omaha
A
generation ago, universities took up the charge of a scholarship of engagement, an umbrella term for the multiplicity of practices and philosophies that include service-learning, democratic engagement, civic learning, and community-based teaching and learning. These powerful modes of linking theory to practices that connect the rich resources of the university to the community are among the high-impact practices that the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has shown to substantially affect student learning and retention. This idea of partnership and reciprocity is unique in that it requires not only communication to public audiences, but also collaboration with communities in the production of knowledge. The watchword here is reciprocity: there must be an agreed upon balance of benefits and responsibilities on both sides. Reciprocity implies that “serving” and “being served” are interchangeable. If the community learns and benefits from the university, it is not less true that the university benefits and learns from the community. Colleges of education continue to grapple with the complexities of community engagement and respectful reciprocity. As a metropolitan university with a successful Service-Learning Academy and a 25-year partnership with the 12 public school districts in the metropolitan area, the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) is a national leader in the area of community engagement. UNO’s vision statement also reflects these traits: “The University of Nebraska at Omaha will be among the nation’s premier metropolitan universities—a university of high distinction with strong academic and scholarly values distinguished by creative relationships with the communities we serve”
(University of Nebraska, n.d., para. 3). This vision has contributed to a recent groundbreaking on a privately funded $23 million Community Engagement Center. These frameworks are critical as the foundation for the relationships needed for community partnerships. Service-learning may seem a natural fit for teacher preparation institutions as our teacher candidates spend hundreds of hours in our community’s classrooms learning the art and science of teaching while meeting the real demands of the students. What may seem an easy fit, however, relies on the same basic tenets of collaboration that exist in any relationship: trust, communication, and shared needs. What happens to a program where half of the faculty members are engaged in service-learning experiences but the other half are not? In today’s competency-based environment, how can faculty meet the needs of the community organization while still meeting the standards of the college program? While the benefits of servicelearning may be documented in the research, is there a price to community engagement?
Background and History Twelve years ago, the quote, “Connecting the school and community requires investigating both what we are doing and how we are doing it. We cannot simply change the way we teach without examining whom we are teaching” (Edwards, 2001, p. 44) described a classroom teacher reflecting on a yearlong service-learning project. Over a decade later, this perspective rings true as colleges of 423
424–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
education continue to grapple with the benefits and challenges of imbedding service-learning in teacher preparation programs and modeling service-learning as an instructional strategy. As suggested by Furco and Ammon (2000), many teacher educators see a blurred line between service-learning and field experiences and cannot accurately describe the differences between the two. Many researchers have identified benefits and advantages to including service-learning in teacher preparation programs. Teacher candidates who are involved in service-learning are often more aware of their professional identity in schools where diversity exists (Mitton-Kükner, Nelson, & Desrochers, 2010) as service-learning creates a potential for teacher candidates to address, and perhaps overcome, their preconceived notions about students. Further, a study by Richard F. Catalano, Kevin P. Haggerty, Sabrina Oesterle, Charles B. Fleming, and J. David Hawkins (2004) showed that participation in communities helped students develop a greater sense of efficacy and stronger connections to the community norms and values. When university faculty members are able to provide ongoing support and guidance to this process, the connections between the campus, the classroom, and the community can become much more coherent (Scherff & Singer, 2012; Zeichner, 2010). Shelia C. Baldwin, Alice M. Buchanan, and Mary Rudisill (2007) suggest service-learning focusing on multiculturalism has the power to help teacher candidates deconstruct inaccurate attitudes to rebuild empowering practices. Other researchers, such as Jewell E. Cooper (2007), have documented service-learning’s potential to help teacher candidates develop sensitivity toward students and build relationships with students that enabled the candidates to correct misconceptions of students and develop a better understanding of the socioemotional underpinnings of learning. Overall, service-learning is an accepted model in colleges of education and has been relevant across content areas, with varying student ability levels, in a variety of educational settings, and in a variety of school settings (Billig, Root, & Jesse, 2005). Teacher candidates who engage in critical reflection related to their course content may experience the most benefits (Carrington & Selva, 2010) as service-learning has been presented as a way to transform teacher thinking and to help teacher candidates visualize their role as beginning teachers. In the process of reflecting, candidates are likely to experience challenges as they try to connect the theory found in university classrooms and textbooks to the practices found in K–12 schools. Clearly, service-learning is an empowering model that appears to answer the call (Lawrence & Butler, 2010; Zeichner, 2010) for teacher preparation programs to address the need to renovate how teachers are prepared during their field experiences at the university. Many teacher preparation programs have institutionalized service-learning by building on their unique
characteristics, supporting a faculty champion, and nurturing P–12 partners to support their individualized approaches to service-learning as a pedagogical approach (Anderson & Callahan, 2005). UNO has provided this support for the College of Education. As an institution, we strive to serve as an anchor for community engagement and reciprocal partnerships that enrich our community while strengthening our core commitment to teaching and research. As a metropolitan university, it is essential to our mission that we capitalize on the opportunity to draw on a rich array of school and community institutions to expand student learning and enhance research opportunities for faculty and students.
Current Issues and Controversies Institutions of higher education and, in particular, teacher preparation programs are under intense scrutiny at the moment and we must be mindful that we aren’t our own worst enemy by being drawn like magpies to shiny servicelearning projects. At best, these projects may pass the quality test of serving a real community need, be tied to learning, and offer an opportunity to reflect and celebrate the experience. At worst, they take time away from instruction that focuses on essential content, are time intensive to create and facilitate, and may even reinforce stereotypes of children living in difficult circumstances by telling a single story of poverty. Colleges of education must be cautious not to follow the call of service-learning without carefully considering if the inclusion of the service-learning is developmentally appropriate as teacher candidates move intentionally through the teacher preparation program, developing their skills as they go. Current calls for teacher preparation reform require structured field experiences that are relevant and tied to coursework, guided by trained mentors, and developmentally leading up to the first year in the classroom. Field experiences are a central component of teacher preparation programs accredited through major profession accreditation bodies: the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), and Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). However, accreditation standards are only one reason to focus on the blurry vision of service-learning as field experiences in teacher preparation programs. Teacher candidates most authentic learning experiences happen when they are practicing their profession in the field. When this experience is guided by university faculty who are working closely with school partners, and strongly aligned with what they have learned in their program of study, they are most likely to develop the effective teaching skills that will impact K–12 student learning (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012; National Council
56. Community Engagement in Education–•–425
for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010; Singer, Catapano, & Huisman, 2010; Zeichner, 2010). NCATE (2010), along with the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ; 2011), American Federation of Teachers (AFT; 2010), Council of Chief State School Officers, (CCSSO; 2012), and National Education Association (NEA; 2011) have each criticized the existing field experiences models and called for substantive new approaches to field experiences. As these organizations are calling for a revision of field experiences in teacher education, we must look carefully at service-learning to determine how it might appropriately be included in teacher preparation programs. Service-learning meets community needs, is tied to academics, and includes reflection. While student teaching may include some or all of these experiences, by definition, it is an extended and guided teaching experience when the teacher candidate takes increasing responsibility for student achievement in the classroom. The primary goal of student teaching is to provide an opportunity for the student teacher to make practical applications of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The major goal of service-learning is to serve a real community need while providing an opportunity for academic learning. As colleges of education consider these changes, teacher preparation programs must address several issues. First, the research is clear that field experiences are optimized when they are tied to a university course (DarlingHammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005). Not all coursework, however, is a clear match for service-learning, and work must be done in mapping out the types and purposes for field placements as a candidate moves through the program. A clear discussion should occur at the program level to determine if what is often a faculty led idea (Anderson & Callahan, 2005) is an appropriate choice developmentally for a teacher candidate in the overall preparation program (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Zeichner, 2010). Programs must carefully consider the number of hours or weeks, and the outcomes of the service-learning experiences. These recommendations must be informed by research (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005), state departments of education, and accreditation bodies like CAEP (2013), NCATE (2008), and TEAC (2011), rather than responding to a service-learning opportunity presented by an individual faculty member teaching one section of a course. Based on the various recommendations, programs should carefully plan a sequence of experiences that meets the required criteria and are scaffolded to provide developmentally appropriate experiences based on the teacher candidate’s progression in the program. Second, in this era of accountability, teacher preparation programs need to develop assessments of the preservice teachers’ performance in service-learning. These assessments should include evaluations completed not only by the university faculty members, but also allow for input from the K–12 classroom teachers with whom the preservice teachers interact during the field experience.
Ultimately, the assessment should also be connected to the achievement of the K–12 students (Council for the Accreditation, 2013; National Council for the Accreditation, 2010; Teacher Education Accreditation, 2011).
Implications As previously mentioned, community engagement is core to the mission, vision, and values of UNO. Our ServiceLearning Academy has been consistently honored for the significant number of high-quality service-learning courses offered each semester as well as interdisciplinary service projects. Being selected as a finalist for the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll is the highest federal recognition a college or university can receive and places UNO among the top 20 universities in the nation. In addition, the Metropolitan Omaha Educational Consortium (MOEC) serves as a vehicle for collaboration between UNO’s College of Education and the 12 metropolitan area school districts. The Executive Steering Committee of the consortium includes the district superintendents, the UNO chancellor, and the College of Education dean, resulting in an administrative structure that serves as an efficient vehicle for implementing community engaged collaboration. In many cases, that has proliferated as service-learning. When we recently celebrated the 26 different servicelearning experiences students potentially completed as part of our teacher preparation program, we realized that we were our own worst enemy. We were spreading our candidates too thin with 10 hours of service here and five hours there. The students may have been serving a real community need, but the skills they were exercising were not necessarily scaffolded toward increasing independence or difficulty. In fact, it was completely possible for a candidate to have three service-learning projects in the same semester and to never actually interact with children in any meaningful manner. Sometimes, there was not even enough time allotted for candidates to learn anything more about the students than maybe their names. Shelley Billig, Susan Root, and Daniel Jesse (2005) identified intensity and duration as essential standards of quality service-learning. These experiences include investigation, planning, action, reflection, demonstration, and celebration, occur during concentrated blocks of time (intensity), and are long enough (duration) to meet community needs and learning goals. While our College of Education was collecting accolades for our community engagement, modeling how to connect the curriculum to the community, and moving our classroom to P–12 settings, we were not attending to intensity and duration, nor were we mapping how these experiences impacted the knowledge or skills of our candidates. In addition, we were not assessing the development of their teaching skills or the impact on student achievement.
426–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Conclusion, Future Directions, and Suggestions for Further Research Over the past decades, we’ve been operating in a testing culture that has pushed us to focus primarily on assessment data with an emphasis on disaggregation for interpretation, analysis, and program improvement. When we look at the outcomes and impacts of successful service-learning projects and experiences, we may be able to talk about what was learned in context of that particular experience, but we must also focus on the idea of looking at the impact of the aggregated field experiences on the development of tomorrow’s teachers. Measurement tools for doing so include observations, anecdotal records, analysis of work products, criterion-referenced measures that examine mastery of specific knowledge or skill, and performance assessments. How do all these assessments, aligned with a variety of learning experiences within a teacher preparation program, fit into the larger picture of teacher development? At UNO, our lessons learned about community engagement include the following: • Selectively identify service-learning that provides sufficient intensity and duration to meet learning goals and community needs. • Engage preservice teachers in scaffolded, developmentally appropriate service-learning that aligns with their progression within the preparation program. • Conduct multiple assessments that align with program outcomes for both candidates and community partners.
Service-learning, comprehensively and systematically embedded, has the ability to be an effective and essential component of teacher preparation programs. In an environment of intense examination of teacher preparation, we must embrace the opportunities of community engagement
References and Further Readings Amaro-Jiménez, C. (2012). Service learning: Preparing teachers to understand better culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(2), 211–213. American Federation of Teachers. (2012). Raising the bar: Aligning and elevating teacher preparation and the teaching profession. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/ sites/default/files/news/raisingthebar2013.pdf Anderson, J. B., & Callahan, J. (2005). The institutionalization of service-learning in preservice teacher education. In S. Root, J. Callahan, S. H. Billig (Eds.), Improving service-learning practice: Research on models to enhance impacts (pp. 17–36). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Anderson, J., & Hill, D. (2001). Principles of good practice for service-learning in preservice teacher education. In J. B. Anderson, K. J. Swick, & J. Yff (Eds.), Service-learning in
and implement highly effective opportunities for servicelearning with caution. Aristotle (1984) remarked in his Ethics that “we must . . . not look for precision in all things alike, but in each class of things such precision as accords with the subject-matter, and so much as it is appropriate to the inquiry” (p. 1735).
Resources Indiana University Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning: Service-Learning Program, http://citl .indiana.edu/programs/serviceLearning This website details the service-learning component of the teacher education program at Indiana University. On the left side of the page, there is a list of community partners, which are organizations that provide student servicelearning opportunities in the local community. Service Learning, College of Education, Auburn University, www.education.auburn.edu/edustudents/ teacher_edu_info/admission_to_internship/service_ learning.html This page details the service-learning component of Auburn University’s teacher education program. It is divided into two courses called “Block I” and “Block II.” Links to information about these courses are provided on this page. University of Minnesota College of Education: Volunteer and Service Learning, www.cehd .umn.edu/career/volunteer/default.html This page details some programs and options for University of Minnesota College of Education students in regard to service-learning.
teacher education: Enhancing the growth of new teachers, their students, and communities (pp. 64–84). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Publications. Aristotle. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle (J. Barnes, Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Baldwin, S. C., Buchanan, A. M., & Rudisill, M. E. (2007). What teacher candidates learned about diversity, social justice, and themselves from service-learning experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 315–327. Billig, S. H., Root, S., & Jesse, D. (2005). The relationship between the quality indicators of service-learning and student outcomes: Testing professional wisdom. In S. Root, J. Callahan, & S. H. Billig (Eds.), Improving servicelearning practice: Research on models to enhance impact (pp. 97–115). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Briody, J. (2005). Infusing preservice teacher preparation with service learning. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 26(2), 149–155.
56. Community Engagement in Education–•–427 Carrington, S., & Selva, G. (2010). Critical social theory and transformative learning: Evidence in preservice teachers’ service-learning reflection logs. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 45–57. Castellan, C. M. (2012). Service-learning in teacher education: Reflection as a catalyst for learning. Reflective Practice, 13(6), 843–855. Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252–261. Conner, J. O. (2010). Learning to unlearn: How a servicelearning project can help teacher candidates to reframe urban students. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(5), 1170–1177. Cooper, J. (2007). Strengthening the case for community-based learning in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 245–255. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting: Draft Recommendations for the CAEP Board. Retrieved from http:// caepnet.org/standards/caep-commission/standards/ Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2014). CAEP Standards for Educator Preparation. Retrieved from: http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=N68i fnHgbs4%3D&tabid=432 Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise: Transforming educator preparations and entry into the profession. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/Our%20 Responsibility%20Our%20Promise_2012.pdf Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Edwards, S. K. (2001). Bridging the gap: Connecting school and community with service learning. English Journal, 90(5), 39–44. doi:10.2307/821853 Furco, A., & Ammon, M. S. (2000). Service-learning in California’s teacher education programs: A white paper. Berkeley: University of California, Service-Learning Research and Development Center. Lake, V. E., Al Otaiba, S., & Guidry, L. (2010). Developing social skills training and literacy instruction pedagogy
through service learning: An integrated model of teacher preparation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31(4), 373–390. Lawrence, M., & Butler, M. (2010). Becoming aware of the challenges of helping students learn: An examination of the nature of learning during a service-learning experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 155–175. Mitton-Kükner, J., Nelson, C., & Desrochers, C. (2010). Narrative inquiry in service learning contexts: Possibilities for learning about diversity in teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 26(5), 1162–1169. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=n X43fwKc4Ak%3d&tabid=474 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?filetic ket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715 National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/ edschoolreports/studentteaching/report.jsp National Education Association. (2011). Transforming teaching: Connecting professional responsibility with student learning. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/ Transformingteaching2012.pdf National Survey of Student Engagement. (2012). Promoting student learning and institutional improvement: Lessons from NSSE at 13. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/ annual_results.cfm Scherff, L., & Singer, N. R. (2012). The preservice teachers are watching: Framing and reframing the field experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 263–272. Singer, N. R., Catapano, S., & Huisman, S. (2010). The university’s role in preparing teachers for urban schools. Teaching Education, 21(2), 119–130. Teacher Education Accreditation Council. (2011). Introduction to the Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Washington, DC: Author. University of Nebraska Omaha. (n.d.). Campus strategic plan: Vision. Retrieved from http://www.unomaha.edu/plan/our_ plan.php Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1/2), 89–99.
57 SERVICE-LEARNING AS CIVIC PEDAGOGY Lessons Learned From Students’ Stories KEITH E. ROBINDER Iowa State University
T
his chapter presents lessons learned from a narrative inquiry exploring the civic experiences of servicelearning participants. The purpose of this research was to investigate the stories of how community college students experience service-learning and explore the relationships between participating in service-learning and developing a commitment to active citizenship and leadership for the common good. Seven community college students who participated in academic service-learning assignments shared their stories though narrative interviews. Holistic content analysis of the student’s stories resulted in important lessons for faculty and staff about the efficacy of service-learning as a civic pedagogy. My curiosity exploring the intersecting areas of servicelearning, civic participation, and leadership is a direct result of my own experiences as a student affairs professional, service-learning participant, instructor, and researcher. In my work, I have created partnerships between student affairs and academic affairs that link students’ academic engagement and service-learning with their co-curricular involvement and leadership capacity. This integrated approach enhances civic participation and prepares graduates to use the knowledge, skills, and values learned in higher education to create change for the common good. In Democracy and Education, John Dewey (1916) proposed that a primary role of higher education should be to renew and strengthen students’ commitment to active civic life. More recently Campus Compact challenged higher education to “re-examine its public purposes and its commitments to the democratic ideal . . . to become engaged,
through actions and teaching, with its communities” (National Campus Compact, 2007, p. 2). Service-learning helps students to not only learn course content but also to understand themselves and their role in society. While service-learning is increasingly accepted as an effective pedagogy, for campus leaders to achieve the broader democratic purpose of higher education, it is important to also understand the roles of teaching and learning in the development of civic responsibility.
Understanding the Dimensions of Civic Responsibility Harry C. Boyte and Nancy N. Kari (2000) identified three frames for viewing civic responsibility: the civic frame, the communitarian frame, and the commonwealth frame. The civic frame emerges from the view of democracy as a representative form of government. In the civic frame, higher education serves to create technical experts and prepare citizens for careers. The communitarian frame emerges from the spirit of a shared community and the understanding of democracy as a civil society. Citizens share common values and are responsible for both one another and the larger community. Individual rights are balanced with shared responsibilities. The commonwealth frame views democracy as the public work of the people, by the people for the common good. Citizens are problem solvers and co-creators of democracy. In the commonwealth frame, higher education develops the public imagination and builds capacity for public good through civic action and 429
430–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
the application of knowledge. The commonwealth framework identifies the creation of civic responsibility as the public work of higher education. Similarly, Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne (2003) developed a three dimensional model to describe civic responsibility and democratic participation. Students who participate through volunteerism were identified as “personally responsible citizens” (p. 4). These students engage in the civic framework of democracy. In contrast to charitable volunteerism, service-learning builds individual and community capacity by encouraging participants to take action and engage in their roles as community members and leaders. Westheimer and Kahne labeled those taking action in this communitarian perspective of service for the common good as “participatory citizens” (p. 4). Participatory citizens assume a mutuality in serving others that moves service-learning beyond charitable acts of volunteerism. An educated citizenry is more than technically talented professionals contributing economically in the workforce; education should result in active and engaged citizens prepared to solve the unmet needs of their communities (Rhoads, 1999). Westheimer and Kahne (2003) described individuals with this perspective as “justice oriented citizens” (p. 4). Justice oriented citizens work to “critically assess social, political, and economic structures and consider collective strategies for change that challenge injustice and, when possible, address root causes of problems” (p. 5). These dimensions of civic responsibility, along with the commonwealth framework proposed by Boyte and Kari (2000), provide a structure to better understand the lived experiences of service-learners.
these students’ stories provides a rich understanding of service-learning as an effective civic pedagogy: Meaningful service-learning experiences transform students from individuals to active and engaged community members.
Lessons Learned The key lessons from the students’ stories are presented in three sections. In the first section, Personal Stories, the importance of connecting service-learning to the lived experiences of students in meaningful and personally relevant ways through rigorous preservice and postservice reflection assignments emerged. Framing service-learning in the context of students’ lives increases the students’ selfefficacy, develops genuine interpersonal relationships, and creates more educationally purposeful experiences. The next section, Community Connections, describes the transition from individualism to communitarianism and provides a context for understanding service-learning as a civic pedagogy. The emergence of newfound self-confidence combined with an interconnected understanding of self in relationship with the community is transformational. Service-learning provides students the opportunity to increase their awareness of societal needs and translate this awareness into action for the common good. The students’ perspectives about service-learning generally are presented in the third section, Academic Reflections. The potential for facilitating active civic engagement through servicelearning is evident in the students’ stories, as are some possible limitations.
Personal Stories
Exploring and Understanding the Lived Experiences of Service-Learners Faculty members who integrated service-learning in their courses at a comprehensive community college in the United States were asked to nominate students who had described meaningful experiences in their service-learning reflection assignments. These students were invited to participate in a qualitative study of their lived experiences. Qualitative research involves small, purposefully selected samples that are studied in great depth. An effort to intentionally include the diversity of student demographics and curricular programs was made to ensure that a broad range of narrative stories and life experiences were gathered. The seven students who participated exemplify a wide range of experiences indicative of the comprehensive community college, including students from developmental, vocational, technical, and transfer programs, as well as returning adult students, and younger students with concurrent high school enrollment (see Table 57.1). The students shared powerful and intimate stories of their personal journeys and unique service-learning activities. The analysis of
When students make meaningful, personal connections between their lived experiences and their academic service-learning assignments, the process is more educationally purposeful. As students connected their service experiences to their lives, they shared stories of significant learning and personal growth. I think the most significant thing about going down to the shelter is that even though I’m going down there to help other people, I’m always the one who walks away feeling like I’ve gotten the most out of it. I was happy to be there. I felt really humbled by the fact that I was able to be the one to hand them a cup of coffee. And I’m grateful that I was given that chance to be the one to talk to somebody when they were having a bad day and not always be the one needing [help]. (Cynthia) I worked with [Safe House] which was a shelter for domestically abused and sexually abused women. That one spoke to me because my sister has had some incidents like that. She didn’t tell me right when it happened. There were a couple of incidents that she told about years later. By then I was like, “Why didn’t you tell me at the time? I would have beaten them up.” She’s my sister and I’ve always been really, really protective of her . . . That’s why I felt like [Safe House] was something
57. Service-Learning as Civic Pedagogy–•–431
Academic Service-Learning Project(s)
Pseudonym
Biographic Information
Academic Information
Cynthia
Age: 45 Gender: Female Race: Hispanic
Class: Major:
Sophomore Addictionology Human Services
Homeless Shelter Administration; Grief Counseling
Adam
Age: 27 Gender: Male Race: White
Class: Major:
Freshman Human Resources Business Management
Flood Response Certification
Brenda
Age: 44 Gender: Female Race: White
Class: Major:
Sophomore Nursing
Family Child Care; Youth Health Fair
Jeff
Age: 18 Gender: Male Race: White
Class: Major:
Freshman General Studies
Youth Fitness Event; Cancer Fund-Raiser
Kennedy
Age: 18 Gender: Female Race: White
Class: Major:
Freshman Communications
Elder Care; Sexual Assault Awareness Event
Mark
Age: 20 Gender: Male Race: White
Class: Major:
Sophomore Construction Trades
Habitat for Humanity; Campus Athletics Project
Linda
Age: 22 Gender: Female Race: White
Class: Major:
Freshman Addictionology Human Services
Habitat for Humanity; Grief Counseling
Table 57.1
Students’ Biographic and Academic Information
I wanted to do. I decided that I’m not going to be angry about it anymore. I’m going to try to channel my anger doing something positive by helping other people that have been abused. (Kennedy) You don’t know how people feel until you’ve been there. I’ve been there. I’ve hit hard times. I’ve had to buy a week’s worth of groceries on $20. I’ve been in their shoes where I don’t have a home. I was seven months pregnant and I didn’t have a home . . . It’s an amazing feeling being able to give just a simple eight hours to somebody else to build a home: somebody living in a homeless shelter right now with her two kids. And it’s amazing to see her face and be able to tell her that she’s going to have a house. It’s an amazing feeling. It’s a better high than I’ve ever gotten in my life. (Linda)
The students’ stories demonstrate that serving others contributed to their own self-efficacy and belief that they have the capacity to make a contribution. The opportunity to evoke this learning is most evident when the servicelearning is directly relevant to students’ life stories. A second theme that emerged from the students’ personal stories was the desire for belonging and significance. The importance of genuine, mattering relationships with
others is an indicator of how students make meaning of their experiences serving others. It’s that little man coming in from out of the cold and me being able to hand him that cup. And that smile that he’d give me. That I cherish. That smile, and me being able to return that ‘cause there’s such gratitude over something as simple as a cup of coffee. You can make such a big difference in a person’s life. And it’s the simple things, I think, that make the biggest difference. (Cynthia) I help out folks when they ask for it. I work on their cars or help if they have any construction projects. I try to help out people as much as I can. I work on neighbors’ vehicles for them, I help them walk their dogs, watch their houses. If they need help working on their house, I do that that type of community work. I guess by helping others out, that helps my own self-worth. I get a sense of pride and accomplishment that I’ve helped out others. I get a sense of accomplishment and worth. And if I can do something to help them out, fantastic. (Adam) When we first got into the project my heart went out to all those women that have been affected. But it wasn’t until we visited [Safe House] itself and got a tour and saw the facilities . . . When we went upstairs and saw some women and
432–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS their families it made it a lot more real. I could read any number of statistics of women being abused or raped and that’s really heart wrenching, but it’s not ’til you see the women that have [survived] that really makes it real. It’s right in front of me, and I see it. It was really eye opening to see that. I don’t know how to put it in words. It was just . . . it was a really humbling experience. (Kennedy)
Every student discovered that by entering into authentic relationships serving others their own self-worth was enhanced. Participating in service-learning reduced a selfcentered approach and replaced it with a greater awareness of self and the interconnected needs of the larger community. These experiences were powerful opportunities for students to learn lessons about themselves as individuals, as well as their capacity to contribute to the common good.
Community Connections As students develop greater awareness of the unmet needs in their communities, their perspective and understanding are transformed. They move beyond an individualistic world view and begin to see their actions in the context of their relationships with others: friends and family, as well as strangers and neighbors in need. This transition in their understanding represents a shift from individualism to communitarianism. I love being a part of a community. I love being a part of my neighborhood; I don’t neighbor too much but I do know folks. I just love it because it really is important . . . I want to give back what was so freely given to me. I just want give back because I had the opportunity that people gave to me. ‘Cause everything’s a circle. Everything goes around. The earth goes around; the sun goes around. Everything is a continuum. By doing service work, I think you keep that continuum flowing in a way that it’s supposed to flow. And we all become part of what we’re supposed to be and the whole works together. (Cynthia) I see myself more as localized now; like we have our neighborhood watch program. I’m an extremely active member of that. We have a lot of older folks in the neighborhood. I walk up and talk to them often, make sure everything’s still going all right. I try to help out people as much as I can. You know I work on my neighbors’ vehicles for them, I help them walk their dogs, watch their houses. If they need help working on their house, I do that that type of community work. (Adam) The neighborhood that I live in now is really pretty tight knit. We’ll all get together at somebody’s house and have lunch or something and help each other out. We’ve had neighbors come over and mow our yard for us before. It’s small things like that really bring the neighborhood together. As the weather warms, I do small things around my neighborhood if someone needs something. If someone does something for you, you should do something back for them. It’s just helping
each other out. I think it strengthens the community. I think it’s just important. The stronger the community, the better it is. (Jeff) When you make someone’s day, it makes you feel all jolly inside. It’s priceless. It’s God giving. I think [volunteering] keeps the world turning like it should. If you don’t volunteer then how are the elderly that can’t get out of the house supposed to eat? How are they supposed to get their sidewalks scooped? How are they supposed to do stuff? You know the daily things they need help with, how are they supposed to get done if they ain’t capable of doing it? ‘Cause someday, tomorrow, you might be in that situation: you might fall and break your back and can’t walk anymore. So you’ll want a person to help you then, so you should help now. It’ll pay off in the end. (Mark)
Communitarianism promotes the ideal that we thrive as a democratic society in relationship with our neighbors, friends, and families. Community life is characterized by mutual care and concern: reciprocal relationships, giving help as you are able and accepting help when you are in need. By participating in service-learning, students come to realize their part as active contributors in the circle of community life. Students made meaning of their service-learning experiences by transforming their experiences into genuine caring relationships, then leveraging these relationships into social action to improve their own lives and the lives of others. When service-learning is intentionally connected to students’ lived experiences, it develops students’ selfworth and self-efficacy. They enter the experience timidly and exit with confidence in their capacity to contribute to society both personally and professionally. Boyte and Kari’s (2000) commonwealth framework emphasized the ability of citizens to engage in the work of democracy as problem solvers and leaders for the common good. The students’ stories reveal their service experiences, while meaningful and educationally significant, remained episodic moments that did not connect to their lives beyond campus. Students did not connect their academic service-learning activities with leadership for the common good. My community service comes down into my actual small community instead of the community in general. I will always do community based and family based service. I’ll help out. But as far as the larger community I kind of see that I’ve already done my fair share. I’ll do enough to get my son interested, to get him going in the right path, and I’ll do enough to keep him encouraged and interested in it, but as far as beyond that, I probably won’t do very much in all honesty. (Adam) I do see [these service projects] building on each other, but I don’t know what they’re building towards. I just don’t know. I know that serving others probably will play a role somewhere in my life. I just don’t know where. (Jeff) All these little voluntary things I’m doing, I’m not really doing them to lead up to something. Really, I’m just doing
57. Service-Learning as Civic Pedagogy–•–433 them because I feel like I’m living right now and I should do it. I’m not really like planning for something bigger, if that makes sense. I feel like people should volunteer. People should do it the best they can to make somebody else’s day better. (Kennedy)
There is a stark contrast between the microcosm of each student’s positive experiences and their seeming inability to connect these activities with intention or clarity to a greater good. Lessons of leadership for the common good appear to be a haphazard coincidence, rather than an intentional, mission-driven function of service-learning as a civic pedagogy. The multiple academic and interpersonal benefits of service-learning are well established in the literature and evident in the stories the students shared; however, achieving the democratic purpose of higher education will require a more concerted effort by service-learning faculty and staff.
Academic Reflections The students expressed distinct perspectives on servicelearning as a teaching and learning activity. For some, it was a technical way to learn career skills or put theoretical classroom knowledge into practice, while for others it was an intrinsically rewarding and deeply personal opportunity. I think education is more than just knowing facts and reading out of a book. Service-learning combines the facts that you learned in the classroom and puts it to use. You learn things about life and how things work. When we actually go do things education is more valuable than reading vocabulary words out of the textbook. Combining the lessons of life with the lessons out of your textbook, that’s what makes servicelearning valuable and successful at the same time. (Jeff) I think [my instructor] understood the importance of community service. It shows a different nursing opportunity. It goes back to realizing that not everybody is healthy and well. It’s realizing that there are homeless people out there. So I did this wonderful thing helping the homeless, but this guy doesn’t have a place to live tonight. How can I make things better that way? By being told to do a community service project we might come up with an answer. If [my instructor] didn’t assign service-learning, nobody would have ever have done it. (Brenda) It’s one thing to read a book and study and like learn something, but it’s a whole different level actually doing it in the real world. It actually helped me take it in and remember it. Ten years from now I’m not going to remember a project like a PowerPoint I did over Chapter Seven, but I’m going to remember my service-learning. (Kennedy)
Completing an academic service-learning assignment was a significant personal journey that taught life lessons that went far beyond the content knowledge of the course. This experiential learning process provided opportunities to develop personal and professional self-confidence.
Implications for Service-Learning Practice Service-learning has the potential to achieve the democratic purpose of higher education by facilitating active civic engagement among students; yet this appears to be largely unrealized. Achieving this potential will require additional faculty leadership and coordination beyond the classroom. To leverage the power of service-learning as a civic pedagogy and engage students as citizens and leaders, instructors need to set higher expectations for more rigorous and meaningful reflection. Reflection is an integral pedagogical component of effective service learning. In this study, participants across multiple disciplines indicated their reflection assignments remained technically focused and largely impersonal. Instructors need to intentionally structure reflection assignments that reinforce the connections between servicelearning activities and students’ lives and values. Bob Price (2002) described a laddered reflection model that begins with less intrusive questions and proceeds deeper into the experience. Additionally, Susan E. Chase (2003) recommended including both the personal and social dimensions in students’ reflections. Sarah L. Ash and Patti H. Clayton (2004) presented a “rigorous reflection framework” based on David A. Kolb’s model of experiential learning (p. 140). Effective reflection moves through an initial description of service-learning experiences to a deeper analysis of how the experiences are connected to students’ lives. Reflections that fully explore the service-learning experience through multiple dimensions (e.g., technical, personal, cultural, and/or moral) provide richer civic learning.
Sample Rigorous Reflection Questions Effective reflection should challenge students to integrate academic knowledge and self-awareness with the complex societal needs or injustices they encounter. This approach is indicative of “Dewey’s theory that reflection leads to better understanding and more informed action” (Ash & Clayton, 2004, p. 143). The following sample questions are designed to engage students in more rigorous service-learning reflection. Describe the story of your academic service-learning experiences. What were your initial thoughts when the project was assigned? What was the most fun, challenging, or surprising part of the experience? What was your role? How did you contribute? Explain what these experiences have meant for you personally. What are some of the most memorable moments from your service-learning experiences? Why do these moments stand out for you?
434–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS What have you learned about yourself through your servicelearning experiences?
Conclusion
How have you changed based on your service-learning experiences?
The purpose of education is not limited to the completion of course-specific, faculty-defined learning objectives; rather it is the realization of students’ full potential and capacity to use content knowledge and general education skills for the common good (Rhoads, 1999). To reach this ideal, service-learning practitioners need to prioritize students’ academic learning, interpersonal developmental, and civic engagement outcomes simultaneously. The students who participated in this study shared intimate and emotional reflections describing their personal resiliency and success. They repeatedly described how participating in service-learning increased their self-efficacy and personal commitment to improve both their lives and their communities. Service-learning creates capacity by helping students to see themselves as full and active participants in a transformational learning experience (Robinder, 2012). Service-learning is an effective civic pedagogy that has the power to transform the lives of students, particularly when instructors utilize rigorous integrative reflection assignments that challenge students to consider their lives beyond the classroom as citizens and leaders. By providing educational opportunities that empower and transform students’ lives, effective service-learning increases human potential in local communities and promotes civic engagement. Service-learning involves students in meaningful experiences that increase their capacity to lead productive and purposeful lives; helping students to be successful learners, community members, and leaders. Service-learning builds cultural capital, increases human potential, and promotes the civic habits of an inclusive, democratic society that Dewey envisioned.
What did you learn about your community through your service-learning experiences? How did participating in service-learning change your thinking about the community? How did your service-learning efforts benefit others? How has your thinking about being a part the community changed over time? How do your experiences serving your community connect back to your life story: your childhood, your family, your community, your values, your various roles and responsibilities? How will these experiences shape your future goals and plans?
Service-learning reflection that focuses on technical academic content knowledge separate from students’ lived experiences remains transactional and misses the transformational potential that results when knowledge and experience are integrated. Service-learning instructors and staff can also strengthen student learning by linking service-learning reflection across the curriculum. Recognizing that students may participate in service-learning activities in multiple courses or co-curricular leadership roles provides another opportunity to enhance civic learning and personal development. By connecting episodic service-learning experiences across the curriculum students are more likely to understand and appreciate how their individual and collective public service improves local communities and strengthens our democracy.
References and Further Readings Ash, S. L., & Clayton P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137–151. doi:10.1023/B: IHIE0000048795.84634.4a Boyte, H. C., & Kari, N. N. (2000). Renewing the democratic spirit in American colleges and universities: Higher education as public work. In T. Ehrlich (Ed.), Civic responsibility and higher education (pp. 37–59). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Chase, S. E. (2003). Learning to listen: Narrative principles in a qualitative research methods course. In R. Josselson, A. Lieblich, & D. P. Adams (Eds.), Up close and personal: The teaching and learning of narrative research (pp. 79–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan. National Campus Compact. (2007). Presidents’ declaration on the civic responsibility of higher education. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/resources/declaration.html
Price, B. (2002). Laddered questions and qualitative data research interviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(3), 273–281. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02086.x Rhoads, R. A. (1999). The politics of culture and identity: Contrasting images of multiculturalism and monoculturalism. In K. M Shaw, J. R. Valadez, & R. A. Rhoads (Eds.), Community colleges as cultural texts: Qualitative explorations of organizational and student culture (pp. 103–124). Albany: State University of New York Press. Robinder, K. E. (2012). Service-learning as civic pedagogy: A narrative inquiry exploring the community college student experience (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2003). What kind of citizen: Political choices and educational goals. Campus Compact reader: Service learning and civic education (pp. 1–13). Retrieved from http://www.academia .edu/2681560/What_kind_of_citizen_Political_choices_ and_educational_goals
58 RELATIONAL APPROACH TO CO-CONSTRUCTED RISK MANAGEMENT LINA D. DOSTILIO AND KATE A. MOLCHAN Duquesne University
T
hrough emphasis on meaningful, community-based service, service-learning pedagogy often brings students (and faculty) into environments not typical to the collegiate setting. Often, off-campus service activities vary widely from those of traditional coursework, and there is an element of risk (physical, reputational, or financial damage) to the individuals and organizations involved. A relational approach to co-constructed risk management (CCRM), which considers the risks posed to each stakeholder, is critical to the effectiveness and sustainability of service-learning. When risk is not adequately considered, or when the strategies used are perfunctory, there are potential threats to student and community participant well-being, program stability, and partnership function, not to mention university and community-based organization reputations. This chapter begins by reviewing current approaches to risk management in service-learning, including an examination of the limitations of shifting risk (as is done with liability release agreements). The remainder of the chapter introduces the relational approach to CCRM, and presents a case of service-learning that uses this strategy. The chapter concludes with the implications of this approach for service-learning: a relational approach to CCRM reduces the risk of harm and damage, while also ensuring a more beneficial student experience, a deeper partnership through expectation setting, and greater continuity of and sustainability within service-learning relationships.
Current Approaches to Risk Management Although some may refer to the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (VPA) as a rationale for not developing a risk
management strategy for service-learning, it is important to note that implementation of this law varies widely from state to state. The actual application of the act is appropriate to “volunteers” who do not receive anything of value (in lieu of compensation) in excess of $500 per year. Some would argue that receiving college credit for servicelearning would invalidate the application of the VPA to service-learners. Additionally, the VPA provides immunity for volunteers (not the nonprofits or universities) serving 501(c)(3) organizations or governmental entities under very specific conditions: for harm caused by their acts or omissions provided that the volunteer was acting within the scope of his or her responsibilities; was appropriately licensed or certified (if applicable); did not cause the harm willfully, criminally, recklessly, or with gross negligence; and was not operating a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft. Because of additional conditions and exceptions incorporated within state statutes, many volunteers remain fully liable (Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 2009). In fact, some states only allow limited liability if the organization adhered to risk management procedures, including mandatory training of volunteers. Within this interpretation, the VPA is not a substitute for an institutional risk management strategy for service-learning. The current strategies to mitigate risk in service-learning are closely aligned with (and in many cases come from) those that have been used to address risk in student volunteerism and co-curricular experiences. The National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (NSLC; 2008) dedicated a fact sheet to the prevention and reduction of risk specifically within service-learning, characterizing it as a complex process. This fact sheet and other administrative guides to service-learning put forward a general process to evaluate and minimize risk in service-learning. Though 435
436–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
slightly divergent, these processes move through similar phases: (a) identify potential risks; (b) prioritize, analyze, and evaluate the depth of harm and likelihood of occurrence; and (c) implement prevention or reduction strategies (see Table 58.1). The NSLC Fact Sheet (2008) recommends that institutions develop individualized risk management and procedure manuals, which should include • the mission, goals, and objectives of service-learning, generally, and the risk management program, specifically; • existing campus policies and procedures that should be applied to risk management in service-learning; • contact information for those who coordinate the risk management and liability processes on campus; • forms and documents for students, such as background checks, service-learning agreements, safety checklists, waivers, permissions, and informed consent forms; • forms pertaining to community partnerships, such as memoranda of understanding between agencies and the campus and sign-in sheets; and • description of appropriate behavior such as that offered in a “do and don’t” list.
The preceding list is primarily focused on protecting students and the campus. However, other service-learning stakeholders also incur risk. When community-based organizations participate in service-learning, there is high opportunity cost that can translate into real economic loss
(Bushouse, 2005). Likewise, there are potential risks to the agency’s constituents and reputation. Faculty and administrators also endure risk, particularly in environments where they are the primary mediators of liability and damage within service-learning, which, according to the Service-Learning Code of Ethics (Chapdelaine, Ruiz, Warchal, & Wells, 2005), is their particular responsibility. Within the Code, faculty members are responsible for minimizing harms to agencies, their stakeholders, and to students. They are expected to offer students adequate training and provide information about potential risks involved in service activities. The Code places responsibility on administrators for managing risky locations and circumstances and providing the necessary guidelines to faculty and students regarding dangerous and ethical issues. Many colleges choose to minimize the institution’s harm by shifting responsibility for risk to their students. According to the Nonprofit Risk Management Center publication, Legal Issues for Service-Learning Programs (Seidman & Temper, 1994), the most common agreements that reduce or shift risk are informed consent agreements, waivers (or release agreements), and hold harmless agreements. Informed consent agreements, which sometimes include waivers, outline the risks involved in service activities. Waivers and release agreements intend to minimize the institution’s liability by requiring students to waive all potential claims against the institution in the case of personal injury or damage.
General Phases
Establishing and Sustaining an Office of Community Service (Torres, Sinton, & White, 2000)
Serving Safely: A Risk Management Resource for College Service-Learning Programs (Joyce & Ikeda, 2002)
Fact Sheet: Risk Management and Liability in Higher Education Service-Learning (National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, 2008)
Identify potential risks
1. Acknowledge and identify risk.
1. Outline potential risks and liabilities.
1. Consult existing risk management policy.
Prioritize, analyze, and evaluate depth of harm and likelihood of occurrence
2. Evaluate and prioritize risk.
Implement mitigation (prevention or reduction) strategies
3. Select risk management tools.
2. Systematically identify risk.
2. Develop safety practices and policies.
4. Evaluate results and revise strategies. Table 58.1
Common Risk Management Processes in Service-Learning
3. Analyze and measure risk.
4. Develop strategies to reduce risk.
58. Relational Approach to Co-Constructed Risk Management–•–437
Hold harmless agreements are contracts between organizations that release one or both organizations from any liability. In some cases, the agreements will include indemnification clauses that require one organization to reimburse the other if it is sued by a third party. The Nonprofit Risk Management Center (1994) suggests that, of these agreements, a court is most likely to uphold informed consent and notes there is strong disfavor of waivers and release agreements. Nevertheless, current best practices for managing risk in service-learning continue to advise colleges and universities to ask students to sign release agreements as a condition of participation in service-learning activities. The premise is that by making students sign consent forms releasing the institution from liability, the students become personally responsible for adequately understanding the risks before participating in the activity. Relying on contract law is not novel. For example, many courts view the student handbook or course catalogue as binding contracts (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). However, there is question as to when general contract law concepts, which act to protect against grossly unjust, unfair, or dishonest agreements, will invalidate contracts between students and colleges (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Take, for instance, the case of Kyriazis v. University of West Virginia (1994). In Kyriazis, the court refused to enforce a liability release because the university offered it on a “take it or leave it” basis, without any genuine opportunity for the student to negotiate. In order to play rugby, the university required sophomore Jeffrey Kyriazis to sign a waiver releasing the university of liability. After Kyriazis was injured during a game, he sued the university for negligence. The university claimed that because Kyriazis signed the release waiver he was barred from recovery and the court should dismiss his lawsuit. The West Virginia Supreme Court disagreed. An agreement will be invalid as a matter of public policy when it attempts to discharge a public service. As such, the court concluded that the release waiver was void because the university owed a duty of care to its students when it encouraged them to participate in any sport, and it possessed a decisive bargaining power over Kyriazis (he had no choice but to sign the release). Universities will find it more difficult to discharge liability incurred while offering experiential-based learning programs—especially for mandatory programs. The Florida Supreme Court held Nova Southeastern University liable when a student was injured during a mandatory offsite internship. In Nova Southeastern University v. Gross (2000), a graduate student sued Nova Southeastern University after she was criminally assaulted at the offcampus site Nova selected for her internship. Though Nova was aware that a number of criminal incidents occurred at or near that site’s parking lot, it did not communicate that risk to the student. The student was later abducted, robbed, and sexually assaulted when leaving the
agency’s parking lot. Nova argued that it did not owe any duty of care to an adult student. The court disagreed, holding that a university has a duty of care under the circumstances to avoid placing all students at sites likely to cause harm. This duty could include, but is not necessarily limited to, warning the student of any known dangers. Therefore, for the purposes of liability, the most important factor is whether the institution implemented adequate safeguards to ensure the safety of its students, regardless of whether it has physical control over off-campus locations (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Further, Nova argued that an adult student with similar knowledge of the site’s dangerous location should be responsible to manage her own risk. In this way, Nova attempted to shift responsibility to the student without an express agreement. The court rejected that argument, holding that there is no reason why Nova may act without regard to the consequences of its actions while every other legal entity is charged with acting reasonably. Taken together, these cases suggest that colleges and universities manage risk, rather than solely shift responsibility for risk to the student. Unfortunately, without institutional support the burdens of enacting risk management strategies tend to fall on the shoulders of faculty and administrators (Chapdelaine et al., 2005) who may be unfamiliar with risk management practices or pressed for time. A creative middle ground may be the most successful route. By recognizing the need to thoughtfully manage the risk involved in service-learning on two levels (as an institutional priority and as a function of service-learning course design), a campus may enlist the participation of all stakeholders involved (administrators, faculty, community partners, and students) to employ a wider range of assets to mitigate risks.
Relational Approach Focusing on Relationships A relational approach to risk management is characterized by structured communication between partners. Sharon A. Joyce and Elaine K. Ikeda (2002) suggest that relationships between service-learning stakeholders undergird the “most effective approaches to reducing risk and creating safe service programs” (p. 17). They propose that relationships foster accountability, which is an outcome of power sharing between faculty, students, college administrators, and community partners. In addition to the responsibilities of faculty and administrators (Chapdelaine et al., 2005), Joyce and Ikeda (2002) call for community partners to share risk management duties by participating in partnerships that enable open communication, encouraging risk management conversations, developing training and orientation opportunities for students, and maintaining general liability insurance. Also, they suggest students
438–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
have responsibilities to participate in training and orientation, communicate unsafe or uncomfortable environments, and conduct themselves responsibly and professionally (which includes restricting service to the predetermined scope of work). The method of risk management featured in this chapter builds on relationships, such as those promoted by Joyce and Ikeda, and maximizes the involvement of all servicelearning stakeholders to manage the risk they are encountering together. A relational approach to CCRM can result in positive student experiences as legitimate (and full) participants in the development of service-learning, a deeper level of trust and partnership between faculty and community agencies as the result of negotiating campus and community expectations, and positive service outcomes that foster greater likelihood of sustainability and continuity within service-learning relationships. Figure 58.1 shows the steps in a co-constructed risk management process.
A Case Study in Methods and Practice Duquesne University is located within the urban corridor of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The university’s
service-learning program annually involves 2,000 students, faculty, and community agency staff via 55 classes offered at every level at the university, ranging from undergraduate to graduate classes. All undergraduate students complete a service-learning class as part of the university’s core curriculum. The type of service activities that accompany service-learning classes vary widely based upon expected learning outcomes and current opportunities within the community. Faculty and community partners generally determine service activities for the unique purposes of a specific class, rather than utilize a centrally managed predetermined list of projects. Students may provide direct service such as tutoring or serving meals, but also provide community capacity building (such as developing strategic plans with partner agencies), advocacy through education (such as compiling testimony about pressing environmental concerns), policy and community research (such as comparing the outcomes of social programs), workforce development (such as developing occupational therapy programs for resettled refugee families), and increasing access to arts (such as implementing after-school programming based on African American arts and culture). As a result of the
Relational Approach to Co-Constructed Risk Management LEVEL 2
LEVEL 1
Develop Institutional Foundation of Risk Management
Determine Unique Management Strategies for a Specific Course
Identify Risk
Community Partners Campus Administrators
Prioritize and Evaluate Depth of Risk
Students (LEADERS) Faculty
Consider Frequency
Consider Severity
Establish Level of Risk
Community Partners
COLLABORATE
Faculty
COLLABORATE
Students
Identify Course-Specific Risk
Plan Mitigation Techniques Review Institutional Policies
Strategize Techniques for Gaps
Establish Unique Risk Management Strategy
Implement Unique Strategy Develop institutional polices and procedures for risk reduction and prevention
Figure 58.1 Co-Constructed Risk Management Process
*include stakeholders (students, agency staff, and participants) as coconstructors of implementation to promote buy-in and accountability.
58. Relational Approach to Co-Constructed Risk Management–•–439
vast diversity of ways students are engaged with the community, risk is not a simple, easily defined entity. Two levels of planning are needed: A foundation of risk management is developed at an institutional level and then a similar collaborative process for determining unique management strategies is used at the course level. Institutional Component In the summer of 2008, the Duquesne University Office of Service-Learning collaborated with the University’s Environmental and Health Safety and Public Safety Departments, faculty, community partners, and students to produce a risk management guide (National ServiceLearning Clearinghouse, 2008). The risk management procedures, policy, and content were developed by inviting a wide range of service-learning stakeholders to brainstorm the potential areas of risk for students, the institution, faculty, community-based organizations, and their constituents. Together, they identified categories of risk: physical or emotional harm, reputational risk, and damage to property. Then, they drafted fictitious scenarios for each area of risk and participated in a process of “risk mapping” in which various types of risk are organized according to a typology of frequency and severity (see Table 58.2). For those risks that were classified as high frequency or high severity/low frequency (as denoted in the shaded areas of Table 58.2), mitigation strategies and gaps were outlined. For example, one of the fictitious high severity (catastrophic), low frequency (rare) scenarios analyzed was one in which students are serving in a community agency located in a distressed neighborhood. As they enter the agency (or while inside), a shooting occurs. Students are caught in the middle and one is critically injured. As the group discussed the scenario, potential mitigation strategies were developed: documenting previous occurrence of violence at or near the agency site prior to sending students, offering an orientation to urban neighborhood safety, creating an established “in case of injury or emergency” procedure that includes the agency calling 911 and Duquesne University police, and having the community agency partner outline its building entry procedures for clients and volunteers. The group identified gaps to be filled or facts to be clarified, including the degree to which students were supervised on site by university staff, student leaders, or faculty; the degree to which community agency
High Frequency
Low Frequency
High Severity Low Severity Table 58.2
Risk Mapping: Typology of Severity and Frequency
staff were aware that a confrontational situation may occur within the agency on that day; and the time of day during which students were on-site. Ideally, if the site had a history of violence, students would not be asked to go there. If there had been any indication that a confrontation might occur on that day, the community partner could have contacted students to postpone that day’s visit. If no violence was predictable, it would be ideal for students and agency staff to know the procedures to use in case of emergency and for there to be appropriate and adequate supervision of the students as they performed tasks. The overall risk mapping exercise and discussion of scenarios resulted in a comprehensive development of risk reduction and prevention procedures (and, in some cases, appropriate response procedures for those incidents that would be fully unavoidable or unpredictable) that spanned scenarios from high to low severity, high to low frequency. The policies and procedures built upon those that were already present and available at the university (such as utilizing criminal background checks for students who are working with vulnerable populations or offering street smarts safety trainings) and in the local nonprofit sector (such as offering agency and neighborhood orientations). Then, policies and procedures specific to the servicelearning program were developed (e.g., outlining the modes of transportation available to service-learning students in the order of least risk to greatest risk). A wallet card product was made available to all students enrolled in servicelearning classes and proved to be an effective tool. The cards have information on two sides, with space to record community host contact information (see Figure 58.2). These wallet cards provided emergency, transportation, campus, and community agency contact information but also provide reminders for professional and responsible conduct—a key element of risk management. The university’s service-learning risk management guide concludes with a worksheet, or conversation guide, for faculty and community partners to follow to determine risk reduction and prevention strategies at the course level. Course Component As discussed earlier, relational CCRM has two components: institutional and course level. The course-level component is implemented as part of designing the partnership between faculty and community organizations. At Duquesne, this is facilitated by a conversation guide (see Figure 58.3) that engages faculty and community partners in the process of anticipating, planning, communicating, and mediating risk. Faculty and agency staff outline the potential risk found within the work to be done, within the location of that work, the mitigation techniques that will be used, and how they will be communicated and reinforced to students and agency staff. Generally, the course-level conversation is a successful means to mitigate risk and cultivate more successful service-learning. However, some faculty choose not to have these critical conversations.
440–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
strategies), it was altered to incorporate a section devoted to risk management strategies (strategies to be collaboratively developed). This may seem like a minor point, but it dramatically altered the relational component. Without this addition, the conversation would have transpired as an almost perfunctory fact-gathering exercise; however, the inclusion of this section recast the entire conversation as a strategic dialogue. Because of this, the discussion unfolded slowly—yet it was also meaningful, intentional, and better developed. Results
Figure 58.2 Wallet Cards SOURCE: Duquesne University Office of Service Learning.
Frequently, this is due to time constraints. Most often, persons deviate from risk management rules to accomplish a competing object—like saving time—because they do not recognize the propensity of harm (Reason, 1997). Accordingly, it is critical for universities not only to develop an institutional-level foundation but also to emphasize the importance and advantages of a courselevel approach. The case outlined here illustrates the additional benefits (beyond harm reduction) that can be gained from using CCRM. In this case, a faculty member, teaching assistant, and executive director of a local social services agency implemented the course-level CCRM. The class was an elective, primarily concerned with social change, enrolling students from diverse majors who ranged from sophomores to firstyear graduate students. The partner agency was located two miles from campus on a bustling commercial corridor. The agency provides clothing, shelter, food, employment, and psychological services on a drop-in basis. Though there is a clear chain of command from agency director to program staff, the culture could be characterized as intentionally appearing low structure, and the agency embraced an open-door, family-like atmosphere. To ensure full participation, the agency director was forwarded a copy of the discussion template. Recognizing that the template tended only to ask about current procedures or policies in place to mediate risk (existing
Because the organization was a drop-in facility with an open door policy in a neighborhood with a high incidence of crime, managing risk was especially complicated. Through a sequence of meetings of which a student leader was a part, a robust strategy for managing risk was developed (see Table 58.3). In particular, this included an on-site orientation that combined students and staff, as well as some of the agency’s participants (or clients). Indeed, it is critical to include stakeholders as co-constructors of the implementation of the unique risk management strategy. In an effort to acclimate students to the culture of the organization and encourage respectful and responsible action, the students were not assigned any projects for the first several weeks but were asked to visit the organization multiple times and develop relationships with staff and client-participants. Other strategies included visiting the site in dyads or triads (not as individuals), signing into the facility, being familiar with the chain of command present each day, avoiding work outside of the scope agreed upon, students and staff maintaining criminal and child abuse clearances, forwarding unique or unusual questions to staff in charge (rather than giving clients misinformation), and debriefing projects continually with agency staff.
Conclusion and Implications In this particular case, the service setting could be fairly characterized as loosely controlled and, at times, chaotic; however, through frank and open conversations, potential harm and damage was successfully mitigated. However, the benefits of the CCRM approach extended beyond avoiding risk and harm: The student experience was positively affected. As one service-learning student remarked, During past service experiences, I typically was thrown right into assisting with programs/activities as soon as I got to the site. However, the experience at [this agency] was different because I was first given the opportunity to observe my surroundings before jumping into projects. This . . . allowed me to [quickly] build more meaningful relationships . . . with other volunteers/employees and [participants]. By having the time to observe, I was able to [learn how to] complete certain tasks, as well as how they could impact, for better or worse, those around me. While having an orientation on site
58. Relational Approach to Co-Constructed Risk Management–•–441 A. Anticipating Risks 1. What is the scope of work the students will do? Consider nature of the work: Time frame (duration of work; time of day) 2. What are the risks if students exceed the scope of the agreed-upon project? a. To the student? b. To the participants of the agency? c. To the university? d. To the agency? Carefully consider the scope of the project: If students work beyond the scope of the project, they may become personally responsible for any potential harms. As such, students should feel empowered to decline requests to work outside of the scope agreed upon. 3. In what areas of the agency property is risk higher to students (for example, certain areas of residential facilities could be “off-limits” to students without agency supervision)? 4. What risks might be present in the neighborhood/area in which the agency is located? Suggested risk management strategies:
B. Outline Mediation 1. What are procedures and policies unique to the community-based setting? (For example, are child abuse history or criminal background clearances required? Are confidentiality agreements needed? Sign-in and sign-out procedures?) 2. What preparation should students have before working in this setting? (For example, this preparation might include an on-site orientation, cultural-sensitivity training, street-smarts training, etc.) 3. When will this preparation occur? Who is responsible for offering the resources necessary for preparation? 4. What are the agency’s procedures if an accident or injury should occur? C. Communication Plan 1. How will you inform students of the risks associated with this partnership/project and the identified mediation procedures? Options: In-class orientation On-site orientation with students Handouts Other: 2. How will you inform agency staff of the risks associated with this partnership/project and the identified mediation procedures? Options: Staff meeting On-site orientation with students Handouts Other: D. Implementation 1. How will you remind students to take necessary precautions each time they are at the community-based site? 2. How will you remind agency staff to take necessary precautions each time they host students?
Figure 58.3 Risk Management Conversation Worksheet
is helpful, there is no way to cover everything. [Simply observing helped me] decipher what was appropriate at that particular site. This is a real benefit because I didn’t want to lose out on a new experience or miss out helping someone, but I also never want to do something that is inappropriate to the specific site, harmful, or potentially dangerous. Finally, I was able to discern where my skills were best served. This allowed me to take on more meaningful tasks.
With regard to developing a deeper partnership and offering greater continuity of relationships, a CCRM approach is effective because it centralizes transparency among stakeholders and features attention to the wellbeing of all institutions and people involved, not just students and universities. According to the executive director of the partner agency, a CCRM approach to risk
442–•–X. SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
management signaled that the faculty (and by proxy the university) was a “community-minded, responsible partner.” The relational aspect was expressed in a desire to be frank, transparent, and that no concern should be left off of the table. In this way, risk to all involved could be considered, but benefit and value brought by all was put into the forefront. According to the director, the “mutual recognition of the value each partner added to the other” was critical to ensuring the desire to work with each other for the initial semester and well into the future. It was clear that both entities (campus and community) were taking risks by entering into the collaboration and that it was well worth the time to cultivate success. Taking the time to share deeply, think critically, and to dream together allowed the partners to craft projects that had outcomes that held value beyond the tenure of the students enrolled in the class that semester. Finally, a co-constructed approach highlighted an important aspect of the relationship: Students are not the only valued party to be protected; agency constituents are just as important. In this way, the risk management process extended beyond the faculty and community partner. The director recalled that “agency constituents learned about the students and the students learned about the agency constituents. Each saw the other group as people to be respected.” There were changes in the perceptions of both
groups with regard to the other, and eventually, the divisions between the groups began to diminish. In sum, the approach taken to managing the risk involved in this case of service-learning was a large part of what made the outcomes so successful.
References and Further Readings
service-learning. Washington, DC: Learn and Serve America’s National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. Nonprofit Risk Management Center. (2009). State liability laws for charitable organizations and volunteers. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/downloads/ state-liability.pdf Nova Southeastern University v. Gross, 758 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2000). Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate. Seidman, A. & Temper, C. (1994). Legal issues for service-learning programs. Washington, DC: Nonprofit Risk Management Center. Torres, J., Sinton, R., & White, A. (2000). Establishing and sustaining an office of community service. Providence, RI: Campus Compact. Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. § 14503(a).
Bushouse, B. K. (2005). Community nonprofit organizations and service-learning: Resource constraints to building partnerships with universities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 32–40. Chapdelaine, A., Ruiz, A., Warchal, J., & Wells, C. (2005). Service-learning code of ethics. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Joyce, S. A., & Ikeda, E. K. (2002). Serving safely: A risk management resource for college service programs. San Francisco, CA: California Campus Compact. Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2007). The law of higher education: Student version (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Kyriazis v. University of West Virginia, 192 W. Va. 60, 450 S.E.2d 649 (1994). National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. (2008). Fact Sheet: Risk management and liability in higher education
Next Steps There are a number of promising research and practice avenues to advance a relational approach to co-constructed risk management. Future research may include the investigation of how a CCRM approach enhances student and community partner collective efficacy and thereby diminishes likelihood of intentional harm. Likewise, investigation of how widespread use of CCRM across a campus influences institutional approaches to risk management beyond service-learning would be of utility to those in the risk management profession. In terms of practice, cultivation of faculty capacity to implement a CCRM approach is necessary. Often, this sort of faculty development is the domain of civic engagement centers or service-learning support offices. Naturally, the capacity of those offices to support a CCRM approach must be built. This would be a fruitful area of professional development as well as a contribution to the research on civic engagement centers.
APPENDIX A: RESOURCE GUIDE
The following is a listing of reputable resources, organizations, programs, and journals that focus on community engagement. We have also attempted to list websites, where available, for your immediate access; however, note that these Web addresses may change. Achieving the Dream Institute, www.achievingthedream.org Achieving the Dream is a nongovernmental organization developed to support community colleges, low-income, and historically marginalized students who attend them. Its website offers education, initiatives, and other informative documents. American Education Research Association (AERA), www.aera.net AERA, the premiere association for universities and colleges, offers multiple publications, special-interest groups (SIGs), and an annual convention. Of particular note is the Service-Learning and Experiential Education SIG. Available free to AERA members, the American Educational Research Journal offers a wide range of theoretical and empirical education research. American Journal of Education (AJE), www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/ journal/aje.html The quarterly AJE publishes a variety of articles relating to philosophy, theory, research, and synthesis in educational fields. Apptivo, www.apptivo.com Apptivo is one example of a Web-based project-management approach. (See also Collabtive, Freedcamp, and Trello in the resource guide. For an overview, see Chapter 41, “Integrating Technology With Service-Learning.”) Campus Compact, www.compact.org This is a national organization of more than 1,100 institutions of higher education presidents dedicated to accomplishing the public purposes of higher education. It promotes and fosters students’ citizenship skills and is the only college or university organization solely committed to campusbased civic engagement. The organization serves as a
support system for institutions of higher education (IHEs), including offering faculty support in infusing community engagement into their pedagogy or scholarship. Campus Compact’s website offers resources, conferences, and technical support for community engagement partners. The website lists state affiliates that provide local programming and support to surrounding institutions through annual conferences, such as the Eastern Regions Campus Compact Conference (www.ercc.floridacompact.org). Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, www.carnegiefoundation.org/ This independent research and policy organization is dedicated to developing ideas that will advance teaching, learning, and scholarship. It provides nationally recognized classification awards to institutions of higher learning for their commitment to community engagement. The awards are administered through the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE). Campus Outreach Opportunity League (COOL), http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper181.html This league has been a major force behind improving civic engagement in colleges at the student level. Its mission is to educate, connect, and mobilize college students and their campuses to strengthen communities. COOL provides technical assistance and the tools needed to begin the process of social change to universities starting volunteer programs. One of COOL’s publications, The Five Critical Elements of Community Service, has been used to help shape many campus programs. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), www.civicyouth.org/ The organization conducts research on civic education in K–16 schools and the community. Located at Tufts University, the center examines the political participation, engagement, service, and activism of American youths. 443
444–•– Appendix A: Resource Guide
CIRCLE is considered to produce timely and independent research that is widely used by other major organizations and media outlets. For example, it publishes a series of working papers that gives an in-depth analysis of issues pertinent to civic education and/or engagement. See www .civicyouth.org/ResearchTopics/research-products-cat/ working-papers-research-products-cat/#for recent papers. Collabtive, www.collabtive.com/
actively and civically engaged within their communities. CWI emphasizes four core principles in service-learning: sense of purpose, academic integrity, student engagement, and meaningful integrated reflection. CWI offers on-site professional development opportunities, an educator’s guide to service-learning and the Common Core, articles, and authentic reflections grounded in practice. In addition, it hosts summer institutes and publishes the Community Works Journal.
Collabtive is an online project management suitable for service-learning institutions and partners.
Community Works Journal (CWJ), http://communityworksinstitute.org/cwjonline/
College Teaching, www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20# .VFKEuzTF_0F
An online magazine produced by the nonprofit Community Works Institute, CWJ includes articles about teaching practices that build, enhance, and sustain community.
This quarterly print and online journal focuses on providing interdisciplinary perspectives on teaching and learning in undergraduate and graduate education. See sample issues at www.tandfonline.com/toc/vcol20/current#.VEu3vnF98E. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20# .VFKFCDTF_0F Published monthly, this international journal offers research and commentary on issues relating to community colleges, including applied learning and service-learning approaches. See indices at www.tandfonline.com/loi/ ucjc20#.VE5K1PnF98E. Community College National Center for Community Engagement Conference (CCNCCE), http://ccncce.org/
Conference on Applied Learning in Higher Education This annual conference offers an array of presentations and research on applied learning. Access current calls for presentations and past programs at www.missouriwestern .edu/appliedlearning. See also the Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education. Diversity and Democracy, www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy This journal, a publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), offers higher education articles on civic engagement, global learning, and democratic engagement. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, http://esj.sagepub.com/
This is the only national organization that dedicates its focus to community colleges. It provides support to community colleges by developing programs, hosting an annual conference, securing funding for service-learning and civic engagement, and producing an online peerreviewed publication, The Journal for Civic Commitment.
This publication focuses on issues related to citizenship and social justice. It provides an international forum for scholars to engage in dialogue regardless of their perspectives or academic disciplines.
Community-Campus Partnership for Health (CCPH), https://ccph.memberclicks.net/mission-values-goals
The Education Liberation Network is a collection of students, teachers, and activists who “believe a good education should teach people—particularly low-income youth and youth of color—how to understand and challenge the injustices their communities face.” They host EdLib Lab, an online collection of shared resources about educating for social justice, publish the quarterly magazine Voices in Urban Education, and hold the annual Free Minds, Free People Conference for practitioners and researchers to share best practices.
This organization promotes social justice and health equity through partnerships between academic institutions and communities. Part of its goal is to ensure that social change issues, as perceived by the community, are a pivotal component of community and academic partnerships. CCPH focus areas include community-based participatory research, community-engaged scholarship, communityinstitutional partnerships, service-learning, research ethics, and anchor institutions. In addition, the organization hosts an international conference and facilitates a community network for research equity and impact. Community Works Institute (CWI), www.communityworksinstitute.org/ This organization of scholars and practitioners promotes instructional practices that support students in being
Education Liberation Network, www.edliberation.org/
Engaged Department Toolkit, www.e2e-store.com/compact/compactproduct.cgi?category_id=&product_id=136 This publication, available on the Campus Compact site, is part of Campus Compact’s Engaged Department Initiative. It is meant to be a starting point for transforming into an engaged academic department. This toolkit includes
–Appendix A: Resource Guide –•–445
practical information for faculty who want to incorporate service-learning and community engagement into their courses and scholarships, as well as into the departmental cultures, curriculum, learning outcomes, and assessments. It also includes sample action plans and assessment strategies in addition to a section on helpful strategies and avoiding common barriers. Engagement Scholarship Consortium (ESC), http://engagementscholarship.org/ This member organization of institutions of higher learning is committed to building strong community-university partnerships while promoting rigor in scholarship and building community capacity. The organization was born out of the National Scholarship Conference when Pennsylvania State University, Ohio State University, and University of Wisconsin–Extension came together to share ideas about their community programs. ESC’s scholarly agenda includes conducting international research on scholarship of engagement; facilitating collaboration between individuals interested in promoting engaged scholarship as criteria for faculty evaluation; conducting national and international institutes, conferences, and meetings; advancing research on community-campus partnerships; and publishing and disseminating research on engagement. The organization hosts an annual conference for all stakeholders engaged in service-learning and community engagement, hosts workshops of emerging scholars, facilitates a network forum for outreach and community engagement staff, and hosts an academy of community engagement scholarship. Freedcamp, https://freedcamp.com/ Freedcamp is a free online project management tool with upgrade potential for partners and institutions. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index .php/ijcre/index An annual open-access international journal for all stakeholders, including practitioners, academics, and community partners, to explore and reflect on issues relating to community engagement. This publication offers four different sections: refereed research articles; nonrefereed, practicebased articles; nonrefereed snapshots highlighting works of all stakeholders; and a review section on books and media. Generator School Network (GSN), https://gsn.nylc.org/plan This online community of youths and adults is a resource for networking and sharing focused on service-learning professional development. This site now hosts the National ServiceLearning Clearinghouse library of service-learning resources; provides a centralized spot for sharing resources for faculty, staff, students, and community; and offers a forum for sharing and collaborating with partners on projects.
IMPACT National Conference, www.impactconference.org This annual conference has existed under various names since 1985 and offers presentations on social action, service-learning, and civic engagement. International Partnership for Service-Learning, www.ipsl.org/ This organization offers undergraduate and graduate programs that integrate academic studies, community service, and cultural immersion to give students a full and authentic study-abroad experience. The goal is to empower students to be civically engaged with people around them. It also offers a graduate program in international development and service. This organization could be a resource for those seeking placements in various countries. Indiana University Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning: Service-Learning Program, http://citl.indiana.edu/programs/serviceLearning/ ResourcesforService-Learning.php Among other resources, this center offers a number of service-learning documents, such as reflection questions and a guide for community partners. International Association for Research on ServiceLearning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE), www.researchslce.org/ This international organization promotes advancement in research on community engagement. It is committed to exchanging research ideas and experiences, providing a forum for scholarly dialogue through publications and conferences, supporting scholars new to the field, and initiating programs and activities that advance servicelearning and community engagement. It hosts a conference on service-learning and community engagement and publishes articles in its online, peer-reviewed journal, International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IJRSLCE). International Journal for Service-Learning in Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/ijsle/index This is a valuable resource that supports colleagues in the engineering-related fields. The journal offers original works that link engineering and social entrepreneurship with issues within the community. The manuscripts in this journal provide program models, assessment efforts, and best practices solidly rooted in service-learning and engineering. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education (JALHE), www.missouriwestern.edu/ appliedlearning/journal/ This open-access international and interdisciplinary journal focuses on scholarship of applied learning at
446–•– Appendix A: Resource Guide
institutions of higher education. Missouri Western State University publishes the journal annually in the fall and offers free online access to the publication. See also the Conference on Applied Learning in Higher Education. Journal for Civic Commitment, The (JCC), http://ccncce.org/journal/issue22
research, community-based research, and service-learning and action research. The journal encourages manuscripts in six different areas: research articles, reflective essays, projects with promise, practice stories from the field, book reviews, and dissertation overviews. Journal of Planning Education and Research, http://jpe.sagepub.com
A free, biannual publication from the Community College National Center for Community Engagement, the JCC provides an outlet for pieces about service-learning across all disciplines.
Although primarily concerned with urban planning, this journal includes pieces that deal with civic engagement and service-learning approaches.
Journal of Community Practice, www.acosa.org/joomla/journalinfo
The Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education, http://jpshe.missouristate.edu
The Association for Community Organization and Social Administration (ACOSA) sponsors this journal. The organization rooted in social work practice provides an academic forum for academics and practitioners, especially from the social sciences, to explore contemporary issues in community practice.
An annual publication, this journal offers a higher education focus for practitioners of community engagement.
Journal of College Student Development, www.myacpa.org/journal-collegestudent-development The American College Personnel Association produces this bimonthly national and international journal containing a wide variety of topics associated with undergraduate and graduate education. Journal of Democracy, https://journalofdemocracy.wordpress.com/
Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JOSOTL), http://josotl.indiana.edu/index This peer-reviewed publication provides a medium for disseminating research on teaching and learning in institutions of higher learning. It offers publications that are theory based and supported with evidence. Key words emanating from this open-access journal include active learning, collaborative teaching, experiential learning, reflective practice, and student activism. Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education, http://journals.sfu.ca/jslhe/index.php/jslhe/index
The private, nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy has published this quarterly journal since 1990. The journal focuses on democracy issues around the world.
This international, peer-reviewed, online journal offers articles focusing on effective institutional community partnerships. It is a subscription-free journal housed within the University of Louisiana System.
Journal of Experiential Education (JEE), http://jee.sagepub.com/
Liberal Education, www.aacu.org/liberaleducation
The quarterly JEE, published by the Association for Experiential Education, offers members scholarly articles on issues relating to service-learning, outdoor education, and environmental education.
The flagship journal of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), Liberal Education presents articles on undergraduate education and liberal learning.
Journal of Higher Education, The (JHE), www.ashe.ws/?page=186 Since 1930, the bimonthly JHE has published research on theory and practice in higher education. It is affiliated with the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach & Engagement (JHOE), http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index .php/jheoe/index This peer-reviewed journal serves to advance scholarship in outreach and engagement. It encourages publications that focus on trends, issues, challenges, innovative strategies, and opportunities in community engagement. It highlights pieces that illustrate the effectiveness of engaged
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (MJCSL), http://ginsberg.umich.edu/mjcsl/about This reputable peer-reviewed journal shares research publications rooted in growing and sustaining the scholarship of community engagement and its educators and practitioners. The publications are also aimed at promoting and legitimizing research in civic engagement, servicelearning, and public scholarship. National Association of Multicultural Education (NAME), http://nameorg.org This is a premier national and international organization fully dedicated to the full infusion of multicultural education in schools’ curriculum. The organization provides a
–Appendix A: Resource Guide –•–447
medium for the K–20 schools and communities to engage in opportunities and dialogue that will impact policies and reform that advances political, social, economic, and educational equity. The organization has chapters in various parts of the world. NAME sponsors an annual conference, publishes a quarterly journal, Multicultural Perspectives, and hosts a listserv. This organization is extremely beneficial for all partners interested in collaborating with partners in culturally and linguistically diverse communities. National Collaborative for the Study of University Engagement (NCSUE), http://ncsue.msu.edu/ NCSUE is an organization that strives to advance understanding of how university engagement improves community progress and scholarship among faculty. Housed at Michigan State University, it brings together community stakeholders and scholars to explore various ways to build collaboration. The website is a great resource for partners interested in tools of engagement, assessment ideas, and resources for promotion and tenure. National Conference on Volunteering and Service, www.volunteeringandservice.org Promoted by the Points of Light organization, this conference offers attendees from private and public organizations an opportunity to network and learn about initiatives and approaches to community engagement and volunteerism. National Service-Learning Conference, http://servicelearningconference.org This international conference brings together youths and adults from all over the world to engage in critical dialogues about community engagement. It offers participants resources, tools, and ideas that can be applied back in their home communities. National Society for Experiential Education Annual Conference, www.nsee.org The nonprofit National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE) offers this conference to those interested in experiential education. National Youth Leadership Council (NYLC), www.nylc.org/about The National Youth Leadership Council provides programs and services that develop young leaders, support educators, and advance the field of service-learning.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, http://nvs.sagepub.com An international, interdisciplinary publication that offers research, discussion, and analysis of the nonprofit and voluntary fields. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, www.partnershipsjournal.org Partnerships offers open access to multidisciplinary, peerreviewed articles on a wide array of topics of interest to all stakeholders involved in community engagement. Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service and Learning: A Wingspread Special Report, www.nationalserviceresources.gov/online-library/ items/r4174#.VE6KuOc3eTg The 10 principles outlined in this report were generated based on collaboration with the National Society of Experiential Education, the Johnson Foundation, and more than 70 organizations. The report lays out and offers examples of principles of good practice. Reflections: A Journal of Public Rhetoric, Civic Writing, and Service Learning, http://reflectionsjournal.net This peer-reviewed journal publishes research, essays, and interviews. Policy and practice are major topics of interest. Rethinking Schools, www.rethinkingschools.org Rethinking Schools has grown from a group of teachers to being one of the premier sources in the country for social justice curriculum. It is committed to equity in all schools, although there is an emphasis on issues of race and urban education. Rethinking Schools publishes a journal and is spearheading Teaching the People’s History, the Howard Zinn Project aimed at teaching history from multiple perspectives. Publications include Rethinking Our Classrooms, Rethinking Columbus, and Teaching for Joy and Justice. This is a valuable resource for any educator searching for accessible classroom resources. Service-Learning Management Software, http://mncampuscompact.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/10/SL-mgmt-tech-overview.pdf Those who seek a management system to facilitate servicelearning projects may wish to read this preliminary, nonexhaustive survey of systems from the Minnesota Campus Compact.
New Directions for Higher Education (NDHE), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/ (ISSN)1536-0741
The Milwaukee Idea at University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, http://www4.uwm.edu/milwaukeeidea/ elements/wingspread.pdf
A quarterly journal, NDHE provides a venue for the latest developments in higher education.
The Milwaukee Idea is a 1999 community-engagement initiative that emerged out of the University of
448–•– Appendix A: Resource Guide
Wisconsin-Milwaukee to build community partnerships that support learning. This initiative brings together various stakeholders to address community issues. Theory Into Practice, http://tip.ehe.osu.edu Since 1962, Theory Into Practice has offered peerreviewed, quarterly thematic issues on topics relating to current and future educational practice (e.g., bullying, assessment). Trello, https://trello.com Trello is a free Web-based project organization approach. Institutions may want to consider upgrading for greater functionality. Wingspread Declaration on Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University, www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ wingspread_declaration.pdf This is a must-have document for all engaged in the scholarship of community engagement. It is the result of a 1998 Wingspread conference of university presidents, provosts, deans, faculty members, professional associations, civic
organizations, and private foundations. The report shares a vision of public engagement that institutions of higher learning could infuse into their mission. The document shares how all partners in IHEs could be filled with the democratic spirit from the student level to the institutional level. Additional reports include Calling the Question: Is Higher Education Ready to Commit to Community Engagement?, a report from the 2004 Institutionalizing University Engagement conference, which can be accessed at http://www4.uwm.edu/milwaukeeidea/elements/ wingspread.pdf. W.K. Kellogg Foundation, www.wkkf.org/what-we-do/ community-and-civic-engagement Established in 1930 by cereal company founder W. K. Kellogg, the foundation administers funds to programs that promote the education, health, and welfare of children and young adults. The organization emphasizes community and civic engagement because it believes in empowering communities to solve their own challenges. This is a valuable resource for those seeking funding for programs that support marginalized or vulnerable populations.
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY
These definitions are written specifically to describe the terms in the context of service-learning. academic service-learning A teaching and learning pedagogy. See “service-learning” for a full definition. advisory council A diverse group of individuals representing various curricula and co-curricular areas dedicated to service-learning as a curricular approach. Also referred to as a committee or council, this collegewide group provides counsel and guides the institution on rules, policies, and practices relating to service and civic engagement. African Americans Refers to individuals who are from Black racial groups, of African descent, and are citizens of the United States. Asian Americans Refers to citizens of the United States with origins to countries in the Asian continent. Some people within this group tend to identify themselves with their specific ethnic origins (e.g., Chinese American or Japanese American). assessment The act of completing a form of evaluation or judgment. Assessment varies by field but always contains some form of evaluation. assets The strengths, talents, and resources that communities possess. authentic partnerships Longstanding relationships that are developed and nurtured between all partners based on reciprocity, mutual trust, openness, and respect. In authentic partnerships, all partners have equal roles in the decision-making process. bicultural Refers to individuals who can comfortably exist within two cultures, or move from one culture to another. bilingual Refers to the ability to understand two languages. charity Refers to when giving is one sided and is controlled by the giver; there is a power differential between the giver and the receiver.
civic engagement An approach that involves taking action to examine and address public issues and results in improving the quality of life for individuals and the community. co-educators Refers to all partners involved in the community engagement process. For example, the community residents and agencies become co-educators as they possess and hold the expertise, skills, and knowledge needed to support student and faculty learning. community Can be based on geographic, regional, linguistic, or group affiliation. For example, a K–12 school could consider itself a community, while a neighborhood considers itself the same. Community is bound by shared, mutual goals but may also be characterized by multiple perspectives. community-based learning A pedagogical approach that positions the community to have a critical and integral role in the teaching and learning process. Some institutions prefer to use this term instead of service-learning to emphasize the significant role of the community. This pedagogy is intentional, structured, and connects course activities and objectives to practice with community involvement. It also empowers learning within the community as faculty and students are partnering with the community in fulfilling community needs from the perspectives of the community. Those who subscribe to this terminology emphasize the critical role the community plays in the teaching process as they are experts about their own issues and needs. Also called academic communitybased learning or community-engaged learning. community-based participatory research A collaborative service-learning research method that emphasizes using the community as partners in conducting research to address community issues. This approach thrives on collaboration as faculty, students, and the community partner together from the beginning to explore and identify the research issue(s), design the project, set research goals, determine the methodologies and timeline, and disseminate the findings. 449
450–•–Appendix B: Glossary
community needs Areas that are of particular concern to the community partners. community service An approach that refers to individuals volunteering in activities that are not necessarily linked to a course’s goals or objectives. The focus is on doing for the community rather than doing with the community. community service-learning Used interchangeably with service-learning, but in this case, community is attached to emphasize the role of the community, implying that service-learning is impossible without the community component. contracts Formal agreements developed with and between partners that outline and specify the roles, expectations, duties, responsibilities, and duration of community engagement. Many institutions are moving toward referring to these contracts as a memorandum of agreement or understanding (MoA/MoU). credit-bearing Suggests that courses with a servicelearning component must have actual credits attached to them in order to be legitimately considered servicelearning. Credit-bearing is a critical factor that helps to differentiate between service-learning and community service. critical reflection Reflection that engages, pushes, challenges, and empowers students to think critically and reflect on service experiences and about issues that emerge while engaging in the community in order to connect those issues to course goals and their own evolving personal, social, and emotional development. critical service-learning A service-learning approach that engages students to interrogate, challenge, examine, and explore institutional inequities and systems of oppression impacting the community, including racism, sexism, and classism. Students become critically conscious and informed of these issues and, in the process, become civically engaged and empowered to collaborate with the community to dismantle these oppressive systems. critical thinking The intellectual process of questioning and analyzing in order to problem solve or engage in creative activity. deficits Stigmas that some participants may label communities as having, such as challenges, weaknesses, and problems. Participants who regard the community as having these issues tend to position themselves as knowing and solving the problems of the community. direct service Means participants are directly involved, engaged, or interacting with the community. disenfranchised A person or a group of people who do not have the rights, privileges, or power to participate fully or equally in society. disposition Participants’ attitudes, habits, or moods and how they display these attitudes to others.
diversity In this context, relates to various people, beliefs, values, community groups, organizations, perspectives, cultural groups (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, ages, exceptional needs, family unit). Diversity is created through differences between various groups, perspectives, and views. do-gooder effect A term used when some partners engaged in service-learning opportunities assume the role of saviors and experts in the community they are serving and assert the role of saving this community. evaluate Assess the goals and impact of a project or practice. experiential education An educational philosophy where participants are engaged in the learning process outside of the typical traditional classroom. There are different types of experiential education, including service-learning, civic engagement, practicum, and immersion experiences. goals Participants/groups setting the end result of what they wish to achieve and then working toward that end. Hispanic In the United States, Hispanic is used interchangeably with Latina/o. However, groups interpret the terms differently: Hispanic refers to people from a Spanishspeaking background, while Latino/a applies to those with roots in South and Central America as well as the Spanishspeaking Caribbean islands. Hurricane Katrina A major 2005 storm that struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and caused significant damage to political and social infrastructures, including shutting down schools and displacing communities. immersion trip Designates an experience that includes a home-stay or other close cultural contact in the place visited. The participants generally live, work, eat, and mingle in the community. impact Accrued results of a service-learning opportunity outcome. institutionalize To establish a particular practice or approach as the “norm” at an institution. interdisciplinary studies Programs that incorporate courses from across multiple disciplines to study a topic or topics that do not fit neatly into a single discipline. international service-learning Service-learning with partners outside of the home country. intersectionality Effects of the overlap between and among various cultural groups (race, gender, class) and how they result in “different” experiences for various people, for example, African American women versus African American males. The experiences and interaction of both groups will be different based on race and gender. IRB Short for institutional review board, the board that examines research studies to determine ethical or potentially harmful impacts on the subjects of the study.
–Appendix B: Glossary –•–451
K–12 Refers to kindergarten through 12th-grade level. It sometimes may be referred to as P–12 to include the preschool levels. Latina/o: People of Latin American descent. Latina refers to females, and Latino to males. marginalization Attaching a lesser status to a group in relation to a higher status group. Marginalized groups often have less power and access to resources than the in-power group. meaningful service Service that is grounded in the core principles of service-learning, including connecting course objectives to practice in the community by addressing community needs from the perspectives of the community; shared and mutual goals, power, and resources; reciprocity; and that the service be meaningful to all partners. memorandum of agreement (MoA) Official and documented agreement that outlines the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of all partners. Its contents are mutually developed and agreed upon. Also called memorandum of understanding (MoU). multicultural education A curricula, teaching, and learning approach that acknowledges, values and legitimizes the diversity of our society. It seeks to affirm cultural pluralism and emphasizes that all cultural groups (i.e., race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, exceptional needs, language, etc.) receive equal proportional attention in the curriculum. This approach thrives on social justice, anti-racist education, and critical pedagogy. multicultural service-learning Legitimizes and infuses multicultural perspectives in the community engagement process. This approach is used when engaging in opportunities or service with historically underrepresented groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics/Latinas/ Latinos, Native Americans/American Indians, working families [low income]; Deaf communities). National and Community Service Trust Act (NCSTA) of 1993 Set up the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) to administer federally funded national service programs. The act also created AmeriCorps to support community service efforts. Native Americans Peoples who are indigenous to what is now called the United States. Some prefer to identify themselves as Native, American Indian, or First Nations. objectives Specific accomplishment set out to be achieved that must contain an assessment component. opportunities Activities engaged in within the communities that should be viewed as opportunities: opportunities for learning, opportunities for engaging in authentic partnerships, opportunities for sharing and acquiring knowledge and skills.
oppression The deliberate marginalization of a group or groups through the use of institutions or cultural practices. outcomes Visible, noticeable, and documented changes in the community as a result of the service-learning opportunity. P–20 Preschool through high school to undergraduate and graduate education. Some refer to it as P–16 to only include high school and four years of undergraduate schooling. PARE: A service-learning model developed by the University of Maryland and widely adopted by institutions to ensure a quality experience for all partners. It includes the core elements of preparation, action, reflection, and evaluation (PARE). Some have adopted a PARE-C model to include complete and celebrate. partners Individuals who come together for the same purpose to address and fulfill community needs. Their collaboration is based on mutual goals, shared governance, planning and respect for each other, equal roles, joint decision making, transparent communication, and resource sharing. Used interchangeably with stakeholders. partnership In the context of service-learning, this term is different from relationship as it is formal and long term in nature and results from the collaboration derived from being partners. It is based on mutual trust and joint decision making, along with the factors mentioned in the partners definition. policy Established rules that are integrated, applied, and implemented into an institution’s culture and practices that guide service-learning and civic engagement. power relations Involve unequal interactions between low- and high-status groups. practitioner-scholar A person who integrates community involvement with academic practices and thought. preflection Structured opportunity to reflect on anticipated service experience prior to getting into the community and sharing one’s thoughts, feelings, assumptions, opinions, beliefs, ideas, anticipations, fears, and excitement prior to engaging in the community. It also can involve exploring one’s personal values, biases, and ethics. privilege The invisible and visible set of rights and/or advantages given to one group, or individuals within a group, that are generally earned merely by membership in the group. racial identity development How individuals perceive themselves as racial beings in comparison to the dominant racial group in society. reciprocity Shared and mutual taking, receiving, and giving between all partners in community engagement. An authentic form of any community engagement model must include reciprocity. When reciprocity is present, all parties view themselves as partners with shared and mutual goals and a balance of power.
452–•–Appendix B: Glossary
reflections Intentional and structured methods used to determine a partner’s thoughts and experiences. Can be formal or informal. As this is a critical component in community engagement, it should be intentional and mediated. relationship Informal interaction between individuals that is limited to a short-term basis. risk assessment Examining, exploring, and identifying potential hazards or risks as a result of engaging in a community opportunity. This also entails putting measures in place to control, prevent, or manage these hazards and risks (see also “risk management”). risk management Identifying the risks associated with sending students into the community and implementing approaches to mitigate those risks. savior mentality: A potential problem of service-learning where the participants may consider themselves “saviors” or rescuers of the community with which they engage (see also do-gooder effect). service provider The community organization with which the service-learning course works. service-learning An intentional, structured teaching and learning approach that allows students to engage in activities in the community by linking and applying course content with activities meaningful to the community. It is credit-bearing, guided by teaching faculty, rooted in the academic curriculum, and supported with structured preflections and postreflections. social justice The idea that everyone deserves an equal opportunity to participate in society as they so choose as opposed to how others choose for them. stakeholders Individuals who come together for the same purpose to address and fulfill community needs. Their relationship is based on mutual goals, shared governance and respect for each other, equal roles, transparent communication, and sharing of resources and power. Used interchangeably with partners to emphasize that each entity has a stake in the entire process. STEM The infusion of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in the curriculum. Some prefer to include the arts and refer to it as STEAM, while others include arts and reading and refer to it as STREAM. strengths Refers to the assets that the community possesses, including its people, resources, values, and neighborhood. sustainable/sustainability Derived from ideas found in the interdependence of biological systems. When applied
to social justice, it refers to the interdependence of communities, countries, and individuals to work together to sustain life. In terms of programs, it refers to the institution’s ability to make the service-learning experience viable (for both budgetary and personnel support) over the long term. unpacking Scrutinizing the assumptions and “lenses” inherent in interactions between various groups. The term was popularized in the 1988 Peggy McIntosh article “White Privilege and Male Privilege.” Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 Also referred to as VPA, the application of the law varies widely from state to state. The actual application of the act is appropriate to “volunteers” who do not receive anything of value (in lieu of compensation) in excess of $500 per year. Some would argue that receiving college credit for service-learning would invalidate the application of the VPA to servicelearners. Additionally, the VPA provides immunity for volunteers (but not the nonprofits or universities themselves) serving 501(c)(3) organizations or governmental entities under very specific conditions: for harm caused by their acts or omissions provided that the volunteer was acting within the scope of responsibilities; appropriately licensed or certified (if applicable); did not cause the harm willfully, criminally, recklessly, or with gross negligence; and was not operating a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft. Because of additional conditions and exceptions incorporated within state statutes, many volunteers remain fully liable (see www.nonprofitrisk.org for information and support). In fact, some states only allow limited liability if the organization adhered to risk management procedures, including required training of volunteers. Within this interpretation, the VPA is not a substitute for an institutional risk management strategy for service-learning. volunteerism The practice of giving time, expertise, or physical work to an educational, charitable, or community organization. Volunteers in Service to America Also called VISTA, the group was incorporated into AmeriCorps in 1993 as part of the National and Community Service Act. White privilege The set of conditions that enables White people to move through daily life (shopping, workplace, intercultural relationships) without having to scrutinize their interactions or behaviors. Whites Often used in the United States to designate people of European descent, although the U.S. Census also uses it to refer to people of Middle Eastern and North African origins.
INDEX
Academic community-based (community-engaged) learning approaches diverse community settings and, 41–43 overview, 37 partnerships and, 39–41 related terminology, 37–39 Academic discipline, service-learning as, 107–111 Academic rigor, xxxiv Academic schedules, 167, 396 “Academic service-learning” (ASL) interdisciplinary studies and, 123–127 management education and, 203–206 P–16 service-learning partnerships and, 171, 173 participatory research and, 147 role of, in a mission-driven institution, 334–338 teacher education and, 246–251, 317–323 Academy, decentering, 398 Academy and community, perceptions between, 418–419 Academy of Management Division of Management Education and Development, 206 Accounting and finance programs, 209–214 Act utilitarianism, 19 Action as civic engagement component, 69 Civic Engagement Project (CEP), Florida Gulf Coast University, 88–89 in democratic engagement, 87 Action plans for practitioner-scholars, 8, 8 (table) Active citizenship education, English, 387–391 Active Citizenship in Schools project (ACiS), 389 Active thinking in critical democratic citizenship, 78 “Activism and Risk—Life Beyond Altruism” (Rancourt), 55 Addams, Jane, 11, 417, 420 Adrian, Judith, 310 Adultism, internalized, 117 Advisory groups and councils, 130, 322 Affective-cognitive model of reflection (A-C model), 365, 368–372, 371 (table), 372 (figure) Affiliation agreements, 132
Africa humanitarian audiology program (University of Texas at Dallas), 283–284, 283 (figure) rural Wisconsin school project on Ghana, 379–384 Stellenbosch University SLCD course and affective-cognitive model of reflection, 365–377 weServe program (Drexel University), 359–363 Agency Mentor Evaluation form, 162–163 Agency Profile Form, 159–160 Agenda creation for policy development, 130–131 Agents of social change, students as, 359, 361–362 Agreements. See Contracts and agreements Ahrens, Lois, 235 Alford, J., 282 Allen, Pat, 182 Allen, Will, 297, 298 Allport, Gordon W., 330 Alma College, 241–243 Altruism, 39, 55, 290–291 American Association of Colleges and Universities Bringing Theory to Practice Project, 99 American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 425 American Journal of Audiology, 279 American Library Association, 384 American Sign Language, 288 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), 299 AmeriCorps program, 172 AmeriCorps VISTA, 322, 413 Ammon, M. S., 424 Anderson, Carolyn S., 131 Anderson, E. S., 104 Andragogy, 301–302 Anguiano, Claudia, 193 Annette, John, 387, 389 Annunciation, The (York mystery play), 242 Anthropology, 108–110 Anti-oppressive perspective (AOP), 147 Anxiety, 169, 290, 303 Applications, Web- and mobile-based, 303–305 Applications by students for service-learning, 169–170 Apptivo, 303, 304, 305 453
454–•– Index
Arensberg, Conrad, 109–110 Aristotle, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20, 426 Art and Well Being course, Lingnan University, 257–261 Art hives, 179–184 Ash, Sarah, 367, 433 Aspen Institute Center for Business Education, 28 Assessment Art and Well Being course (Lingnan University) and, 259–260 biology programs (University of Wisconsin–Superior) and, 268 English active citizenship education and, 390–391 ethical reflection assessment rubric, 25, 27 (table), 28 French language projects (University of Wisconsin–Green Bay) and, 230 P–16 partnerships and, 176–177 Performing Arts and Community Exchange (University of San Francisco), 236–237 rubrics for, 404 Social Responsibility scale, 354 teacher preparation and, 425, 426 technology and, 303 testing culture and, 426 Asset mapping, 118 Asset-based approach, 187, 188 Asset-Based Community Development Institute, 189 Assistive technology (AT), 277 Association for Practical and Professional ethics (APPE), 28 Attention, in democratic engagement, 86–87 Auburn University, 426 Audiologic Rehabilitation for Adults course (University of Texas at Dallas), 280–282, 281 (table) Audiology education, 279–286 Audits of local service providers, 397 Aural Habilitation for Children with Hearing Impairments (University of Texas at Dallas), 282 Australian Physiotherapy Council, 276 Authenticity and partnerships, 40 Awareness, self-, social, and global, 62 Baca, Isabel, 156–157 Background check policies, 167 Bailey, A., 32 Baldwin, Sheila C., 424 Banking model of education, 55, 217, 234 Banks, James, 380, 381 Battistoni, Richard, 414 Batts, V., 33 Baxter Magolda, Marsha, 325–326 Beaumont, Elizabeth, 240 Beckman, Mary, 195 Beere, Carole, 404 Bellah, Robert, 96 Beloit College, 417, 421 Benchmarks for engagement, 403
Benneworth, Paul, 402 Benson, L., 11 Bentley Service-Learning Center, 206 Berger, Ben, 86 Berry, Gregory, 218 Bhabha, Homi, 180 Bicultural, bilingual framework, 67–72 Billig, Shelley H., 48, 425 Biology, 266–269 Birkenstein, Cathy, 96 Bleicher, Robert, 367 Boas, Franz, 108 Bobek, Deborah, 353 Bobrow, Davis B., 131 Bodily health as human capability, 76 Bohenberger, Jann, 231 Boland, J., 402 Botany projects, 266–267 Boud, David, 390 Bourdieu, Pierre, 67 Bowman, Howard, 127 Boyer, Ernest, xxxiii, 228, 246 Boyle-Baise, Marilynne, 287–288 Boys and Men of Color Project, 110 Boyte, Harry C., 307–309, 429, 430, 432 Brainstorming, 88, 236, 354 Break Away, 341 Brigham Young University Idaho, 130 Bringing Theory to Practice Project (American Association of Colleges and Universities), 99–106 Bringle, Robert G., xliii, 39, 40, 131, 257, 366–367, 398 Brinkley, Alan, 299 British active citizenship education, 387–391 Bronfenbrenner, U., 345 Brook, Peter, 237 Brookfield, S., 25, 34 Brown, P., 194 Buchanan, Alice M., 424 Buglione, Suzanne, 402 Building Blocks for Youth, 237 Building Bright Futures, 172–173 Building Communities From the Inside Out (Kretzmann and McKnight), 187 “Building Family and Community Relationships” standard (NAEYC), 344 Burbank, Colin, 398 Bureaucracy vs. collegiality, 419 Burton, Suzanne, 246 Business Analysis project (Prince George Public Library), 210–211, 213–214 Business and management education case for service-learning in, 216–218 criticisms of, 201–202 myths of service-learning and conceptual-model solutions for, 202–206
–Index –•–455
Prince George Public Library Accounting Project, 209–214 student perspective (Georgetown University), 215–222 Butin, D., 54–55, 107, 109, 337 Byo, Susan, 245 Cabrini College Living and Learning Community (LLC), 93–97 California Campus Compact, 107 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTCC), 111 California State University, Fresno, 107, 109–111 California State University System, 409 Camarota, Steven A., 379 Cammarota, J., 62 Camp CHAT (Communication via Habilitation and Audition for Teens), 282 Campaign Make and Impact project (British Library), 388 Campos-Moreira, Linda, 352 Campus Compact (CC), xxxiii, 395, 409, 411, 413–414, 417, 429 Canadian Alliance for Community Service-Learning (CACSL), 38, 189, 407 (table) Canadian Community Economic Development Network (CCED), 407 (table) Canadian Institute of Planners, 185 Canadian institutionalization of engagement, 401–406, 407 (table) Canadian Society for Studies in Higher Education (CSSHE), 407 (table) Career Youth Development (CYD), 295, 297–299 Carignan, James, 240 Carlin, C., 25 (sidebar) Carnegie Commission, 395 Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, 107, 110, 116, 192, 403, 409, 418 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 401 CasePlace, 28 Casnova, Ron, 182 Catalano, Richard F., 424 Catholic Worker House, 398 Center for Brain Health, 281 (table) Center for Civic Education, 58 Center for Urban Research and Learning, Loyola University–Chicago, 197 Central California Children’s Institute (CCCI), 110 Central College, 395–399 Centre for Effective Services, 132 Chambers, E., 110 Chambers, Robert, 259 Chan, Tsang Sing, 304 Chapdelaine, A., 24 Character and virtue ethics, 17–18 Charity Activism project and moving past, 53 altruism and, 39, 55, 290
community-engaged scholarship vs., 85 generosity vs., 381 justice vs., 64 learner focus and, 48 medieval morality plays and, 239, 240 paternalistic, 33 service as, 391 Charles, David, 402 Chase, Susan E., 433 Checklists for engagement, 403 Chen, Yea-Wen, 193 Chiang, Bea, 213 Chicago Prison Industrial Complex Teaching Collective, 237 Chicago Public Schools, 351–352 Child, Family, School and Community Partnerships course, Purdue University North Central, 344 Christ, J. M., 25 (sidebar) Cipolle, S., 61–62 Citizen Solution, The (Boyte), 307–309 Citizenship education civic skill of “active citizenship practices,” 319–320 English active citizenship education, 387–391 Gadamer’s phronesis (practical wisdom) and citizenship learning goals, 14–15 justice oriented citizens, 430 management education and, 202 neoliberalism, individualization and, 362 participatory citizens, 430 personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented, 54 Civic dialogue technique, 86–87 Civic engagement as benefit to nonprofit organizations, 166 critical service-learning and, 68 defined, xxxvii–xxxviii fostering culture of, 93 insight, action, practice, and passion as components of, 69 service-learning and, xxxviii term, use of, 38 See also Engagement Civic Engagement Project (CEP), Florida Gulf Coast University, 85, 88–92 Civic frame for civic responsibility, 429 “Civil Religion in America” (Bellah), 96 Clara Mohammed School, Milwaukee, 298 Clark, Andrea, 361 Clarke, Melinda, 195 Class, self-reflection on, 63 Class size, 169 Clayton, Patti H., 39, 40, 257, 366–367, 433 Closeness, 40 Cockburn, Bethany, 195 Co-constructed risk management (CCRM), relational approach to, 435–442
456–•– Index
Cognition and emotion, 367–368, 370–372, 371 (table), 372 (figure) Cognitive disabilities, 258–261 Cohen-Cruz, Jan, 235 Cokely, Carol G., 280, 282 Colby, Anne, 240, 241 Collaboration collegial, 417–422 department-driven sustainability and, 412 faculty–student affairs hierarchy (St. Norbert College) and, 333–341 Fresno state civic minor program and, 110 joint, in French Day project, 229 medieval drama project (Alma College) and, 239–243 Saltmarsh and Gelmon’s requirements for, 251 as soft skill, 219 See also Partnerships Collabtive, 303, 305 Collective memory, 32 Collegial collaboration, 417–422 Collier, P. J., 23 Collins, Denise, 54 Columbia College, 99–106 Commitment and successful partnerships, 156 Committing to Community Engagement (Howe et al.), 414 Commonwealth frame for civic responsibility, 429–430 Communication community impact evaluation and, 193–194 cross-cultural, 360 department-driven sustainability and, 412 document management and sharing, 304 relationship-based model and, 136 risk management and, 437–440, 441 (figure) successful partnership and, 156 technology and, 303–304 Communitarian frame for civic responsibility, 429 Communitarianism and individualism, 432 Communities of practice, 419 Community as active, equal partner, 39 clarifying the target community, 193 as colleague, 417–422 ethical reflection and knowledge of, 28 focus on needs of, 48–50, 398 multilingual context and meaning of, 71 perceptions between academy and, 418–419 phronesis, honoring community co-educators with, 14 term, use of, 38, 193 thanking, 413 See also Partnerships Community building bicultural, bilingual program and, 70–71 community art studios and, 181 medieval morality plays and, 239–241 reciprocity and, 116 urban agriculture and, 297 at Urban School of San Francisco, 64
Community college student experiences, 429–434 Community development model, 195–196, 195 (figure) Community Engaged Scholarship Network (CES), 407 (table) Community engaged service-learning (CESL), 179–184 Community engagement. See Engagement Community Engagement Center, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 177 Community Engagement Classification (Carnegie Foundation), 107, 110, 116, 192 Community experience, text analogy for, xxxiv Community garden project (Milwaukee School of Engineering), 295–300 Community impacts evaluation, 191–197 Community partnerships. See Partnerships “Community service,” xxxvii, 39, 380 Community service-learning (CSL), 38–39, 48, 185–189, 375 Community Web sessions, 354 Community Works (CW), 233 Community-based learning (CBL) community impact evaluation and, 191–197 community-engaged learning vs., 37–38 Sociology of Mental Illness course (University of Wisconsin–Parkside), 142–145 term, use of, 39, 191–192 See also Academic community-based (community-engaged) learning approaches Community-based participatory research (CBPR), 147–152, 149 (figure) Community-based research, 15, 194–195 Community-Based Research Canada (CBRC), 407 (table) Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), 277 Community-engaged learning, as term, xxxviii Community-engaged scholarship critical democratic citizenship and, 79 Southwest Florida paradigm for, 85–92, 87 (table) Community-University Exchange (CUE), University of Wisconsin–Madison, 196, 197 Compatibility, 156 Competency-based service-learning, 257, 258 Concentrated models for situating community engagement, 404 Concordia University, 184 Conference presentations, barriers to, 6–7 Confidentiality, 132, 211 Congo, Democratic Republic of, 38 Connector position, 397–398 Connell, James P., 352 Consequentialism, 19 Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago, 237 Contract law, 437 Contracts and agreements affiliation agreements, 132 confidentiality agreements and nondiscrimination clauses, 132 hold harmless agreements, 437
–Index –•–457
informed consent, 436 memorandum of agreement (MOA), 320 sample contracts, 161–162 service-learning agreements, 160, 280, 285–286 waivers and release agreements, 436–437 Contribution to the Field Concept Guide, 5 (table) Control over one’s environment as human capability, 76 Controversy with civility, in critical democratic citizenship, 78 Conway, Colleen, 246 Coomey, Susan, 387 Cooper, Jewell E., 424 Cooper, Sheryl B., 290, 291 Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC), 384 Corbin, Juliet, 326 Core values, 24, 25 (sidebar) Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), 172, 395 Corporation for National Service (CNS), 109 Corpus Christie cycles, English, 239–240 Correira, Manuel, 367 Cottrell, Marvin, Jr., 295 Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), 424, 425 Council of Chief State School Officers, (CCSSO), 425 Counts, George S., 54 Coyle, Edward J., 297, 299 “Creating the Engaged Department” (Wergin), 414 Creativity and Innovation course, Georgetown University, 216, 220 Cress, C. M., 23 Crews, Terah, 405 Crick, Bernard, 389–390, 391 Cripps, Jody H., 290, 291 Critical Conversation Protocol, 34 Critical democratic citizenship, 75–80, 77 (figure) Critical Multicultural Pavilion, 384 Critical reflection, 50, 366–367, 424 Critical service-learning (CSL) case for, 54–55 civic engagement and, 68 definitions of, 62, 352 empirical support, necessity of, 352 goals redefined by, 54 individualism and, 48 Jane Addams College of Social Work project (University of Illinois at Chicago) and, 353–355 service-learning vs., 68 term, use of, 39 theoretical framework for, 352–353 Urban School of San Francisco and, 61–65 Critical thinking, 34, 50, 86 Critical youth empowerment (CYE) model, 352–353, 354 Crucible Moment, A (National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement), 417 Cruz, Nadinne, 192 Cuban, S., 32
Cultural capital, 67. See also Social capital and political literacy Cultural competency, 41–43, 42–43 (table) Cultural ideologies and ignorance, 32 Cunliffe, Ann, 186 Cunningham, Robert B., 259 Curricula and course content, redefinition of, 50. See also specific courses and programs Cushman, Ellen, 70 Damasio, Antonio, 367–368 Dance and theater, 234–237 Dangerous Minds (film), 329 Daniels, Reggie, 233 (figure) Darby, Alexa, 367 Darder, Antonia, 72 Davis, Angela, 235 Day, Doris, 11 de Acosta, Martha, 398 de Certeau, Michel, 359, 361 Deaf Action Center, 281 (table) Deaf studies, 287–294 DEAL model of critical reflection (describe-examinearticulate learning), 365, 367, 376 Decision making community-based participatory research and, 148 ethical, 23–28 power sharing and, 194 University of Illinois at Chicago social work project and, 354 deLeon, Linda, 131 deLeon, Peter, 131 Deliberation, scientific, 312–314 Delpit, L., 62 Democracy Boyte’s populist democracy, 307–308 critical democratic citizenship, 75–80 definitions of, 75 engagement, democratic, 86–87, 172 Deontology, 19 Department-driven strategies for sustainability, 409–414 Description, “thick,” 368 Design of service-learning programs developmental, 409–411, 410–411 (table) epistemologies of ignorance and, 33–34 Gadamer’s phronesis (practical wisdom) and, 14–15 Manhattan County School Activism Project, 56–57 Queen’s University, 186–189 Desire to produce change, 362 Developmental approach Columbia College and, 103 curriculum design and, 409–411, 410–411 (table) positive youth development (PYD), 353 social and emotional learning, 351, 352, 354 teacher education and, 325–326, 330–331 “Deviance,” 141
458–•– Index
Dewey, John on art, 261 on citizenship education, 53 on “consummatory experience,” 237 on cumulative experience, 246 on democracy and education, 54, 429, 434 on education, 47, 259 on experiential learning and education, 387, 390, 391, 417 on knowledge, 234 on meaning making, 126 populist democracy and, 308 pragmatism and, 11, 107, 108, 420 reflection and, 366 on reflection and action, 433 on reflective vs. routine thinking, 330 on scientific method, 15 Stetsenko and, 49 Dialectics of power and resistance, 360–361 Dialogue civic dialogue technique, 86–87 interfaith, 94, 95–96 listening as holistic practice, 397 relationship-based model and, 136 Voices of Justice (VoJ) Living and Learning Community, Cabrini College, 93–97 Writing for Nonprofit Organizations course (Central College) and, 399 Disabilities, cognitive, 258–261 Diversity business education and, 220–221 in community settings, 41 cultural competency and, 41–43 Holsapple’s six diversity outcomes, 220 partnership and, 39–40 teacher education and, 424 Diversity discomfort, 117 Division of Assistive Rehabilitation Services (DARS), 281 (table) Document management and sharing, 304 Documentation, 412–413 Do-gooder effect, 156 Domestic violence shelters, 167 DotProject, 303, 305 DREAM Act, 56–57 Drexel University, 359–360 Dropbox, 303, 304 Drucker, Peter F., 186 Dryzek, John S., 131 Duffy Community Partnerships course, Beloit College, 421 Dune plant restoration project, University of Wisconsin–Superior, 266–267 Duquesne University, 438–439, 440 (figure), 441 (figure) Durkheim, Émile, 108 Duty of care, 437
“Each one, teach one” method, 182 Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentor (ECE-SLM) model, Purdue University North Central, 343–349, 346 (figure), 348 (table) Eby, John W., 396 Ecological Systems Model, 345 EdChange, 384 EdLibLab, 58 Education for Liberation Network, 58 Education reform, 55, 424 Education Resources Information Center, 77 Edwards Laura F., 295 Ehrlich, Thomas, 240, 366 Einfeld, Aaron, 54 Ellison, Ralph, 296 Emotions affective-cognitive model of reflection, 365, 368–372, 371 (table), 372 (figure) injustice, reactions to, 18 relationship-based model and emotional development, 138 Empathy, 138, 144, 272, 323 (figure), 380 Empowerment choice and, 204 civic, 309–310 critical service-learning and, 351, 352 critical youth empowerment (CYE) model, 352–353, 354 deliberative, 308 resistance and, 361 Sociology of Mental Illness course (University of Wisconsin–Parkside) and, 145 subjective knowledge and, 180 Enactus (formerly SIFE), 206 Encountering Other Faiths (Hornung), 96 Engaged Department Initiative of Northern New England Resources, 414 Engaged Department Toolkit, The (Battistoni et al.), 414 Engagement attention and action components of, 86–87 cautions on community engagement in teacher education, 423–426 definitions and meaning of, 94, 261 democratic, 86–87, 172 importance of, 261 institutionalization of, 401–406, 407 (table) networks for, 406, 407 (table) spheres of, 87 See also Civic engagement Engagements With the Common Good course, Cabrini College, 96, 97 Engineering, 295–300. See also Sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Engle, Erik, 352 English active citizenship education, 387–391 Enos, S., 40 Environmental science, 307, 314
–Index –•–459
Epistemic authority, 308, 309–310 Epistemologies defined, 31 of ignorance, 31–35 techne vs. phronesis, 12, 13 (table) See also Knowledge Equity and partnerships, 40 Estroff, Sue, 143 Ethics business management education and, 201–202 of care, 106 community impact evaluation and, 191 deontology and consequentialism, 19 ethical competence rubric, 26 (table) normative, meta-, and applied, 17 reflection and decision making, ethics-based, 23–28 strategic ignorance and, 33–34 of trust and trustworthiness, 33 University Research Ethics Boards (REBs), 149, 150, 151, 187 virtue ethics, 17–20 Ethnicity. See Race and ethnicity Evaluation Agency Mentor Evaluation form, 162–163 of community impacts, 191–197 French language projects and, 229–230 music education project (University of Wisconsin–Superior) and, 250–251 of policy implementation, 132 Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) system, 309 student evaluation of agency, mentor, and organization, 163–164 TRIPS program (St. Norbert College) and, 341 University of Illinois at Chicago social work project, 354 Everybody Wins! Iowa, 397 Everyman (morality play), 240–243 Experiential learning academic service-learning model and, 125 Dewey on, 387, 390, 391 history of, 417 student-directed model and, 203–204 The Two Dollar Challenge, 362 weServe program (Drexel University) and, 361, 362 Eyler, Janet, 139, 240, 366, 367, 398 Facebook groups, 304 Faculty constraints on, 396 departmental success strategies, 412 expertise from, 167 partner selection and, 157 partnerships initiated by, 168 training for, 168–169, 173–175 (sidebar), 173–177, 411–412 See also specific schools and projects
Faith and Justice course, Cabrini College, 95–96 Faith-based organizations, 185, 186, 187 Falsification of paperwork, 290 Fear, F., 11 Felten, Peter, 366, 367 Ferguson, J., 109 Ferguson, James, 295 Financing. See Funding and financing Finley, A., 38 First Year Seminar: Youth Engaged in Service (FYS:YES), Nazareth College, 115–120 First-year experience (FYE), Cabrini College Living and Learning Community, 94 Fiske, J., 360 5 Cs (competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring), 353 5 M Reflection Guide, 6 (table) Fleming, Charles B., 424 Fletcher, Amanda, 397 Flicker, Sarah, 148 Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU), 85–86 Focus groups agenda setting and, 131 evaluation and, 132 mentorship and, 345 Racine Friendship Clubhouse and, 145 Sociology of Mental Illness course (University of Wisconsin–Parkside) and, 143–145 Folger, Susan, 195 Fook, Jan, 150–151 Foreign language (world language) learning, 227–231 Foreign students, constraints and challenges for, 365 Foster-Fishman, P., 11 Foucault, Michel, 230, 359, 360, 361, 366 Foundations of Civic Engagement course, Florida Gulf Coast University, 85–92 Foundations of Management course, St. Ambrose University, 203–206 4C’s model (Continuous, Connected, Challenging, Contextualized), 139 4MAT System, 381–383 Fowler, James, 96 Fragmented models for situating community engagement, 404 Frank, L. S., 25 (sidebar) Frazer, James George, 108 Free labor as incentive, 166 Free Minds, Free People conference, 58 Freedcamp, 303, 304, 305 Freeman, Nancy, 380 Freire, Paulo, 55, 68, 70, 107, 108, 217, 234, 380–381, 417 French language learning, 227–231 Fresno Center for New Americans, 110 Fresno Unified School District (FUSD), 110 Fry, Ronald E., 125 Frye, Marilyn, 31
460–•– Index
Fundamental attribution error, 78 Fundamentals of Rehabilitation course, University of Sydney, 273–275 Funding and financing community impact evaluation and, 191 community-based participatory research and, 148 faculty and fund-raising, 333, 337 Fresno State University and, 108–109 inadequate, 193 institutionalized engagement and, 402 P–16 partnerships and, 171 Social Services in the Deaf Community course (Towson University) and, 289 Furco, A., 39, 195, 304, 424 Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 11–15 Gagne, R. M., 259 Gambia, 360 Gambone, Michelle A., 352 Garcia, Cassandra, 156 Gasiorski, Anna, 325, 388 Gastil, John, 308 Gates Foundation, 104 Gay, Geneva, 383 Gelmon, Sherril, 251, 414 Gemmel, L. J., 39 Georgetown University, 215–217, 220–221 Getting to Maybe (Westley et al.), 187 Ghana, 379–384 Ghoshal, Sumantra, 201 Giffords, Gabrielle, 141 Gilbert, Melissa, 156 Gilbride-Brown, Jen, 325, 388 Gilchrist, Leigh, 367 Giles, Dwight E., 139, 192, 240, 367, 398, 402 Gilligan, Carol, 102, 106 Ginwright, S., 62 Global Alliance on Community Engaged Research (GACER), 407 (table) Global awareness, 62. See also International service-learning Global Kids, Inc., 59 Godfrey, Lisa, 241 Godfrey, Paul, 218 Goffin, Stacie, 345 Goffman, Erving, 234 Goldberg, Evan, 109 Good Food Revolution, The (Allen), 298 Goodman, Diane, 326 Google Drive (Google Docs), 304 Google Hangouts, 303, 304 Gordon da Cruz, Cynthia, 79 Gorski, Paul, 384 Gourley, Michele, 259 Graduate assistants, 176, 177 Graff, Gerald, 96, 100
Great Lakes Elementary School, 248–255 Great Lakes Innovative Stewardship Through Education Network (GLISTEN), 267 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, 266 Green, A., 63, 64 Green Bay Area Public School District, 317–323, 319 (table) Greenfield, Peter H., 240 Grice, Joshua, 310 Groppi, James, 298 Growing Power, 296–297, 298, 300 Gutmann, Amy, 313 Guzman, Ricardo, 194 Habermas, Jürgen, 308 Habitat for Humanity, 165, 166 Haggerty, Kevin P., 424 Halualani, R., 15 Hamilton, Mary, 353 Hamilton, Stephen, 353 HandsOn New Orleans, 341 Hardiman, Rita, 326 Harkavy, I., 11, 402 Harper, Elizabeth, 240 Harris, C., 40 Harris, Glenn, 211 Harris, Jack, 69 Harrison, Sally, 257 Hart, Roger, 352, 390 Hartley, J. Matthew, 402 Hartley, M., 87, 172 Haston, Warren, 246 Hatcher, Julie A., 39, 131, 366–367, 398 Hawkins, J. David, 352, 424 Hayes, E., 32 Haynes, Holley, 246–247 Health care, 137–138 Health sciences and service-learning, 271–273, 273 (figure) Healthier Douglas County Coalition (HDCC), 268 Heffernan, Kerrissa, 241 Helms, Janet, 326 Hidayat, Dadit, 156, 158 Hierarchy of faculty vs. student affairs, 336–338 High school equivalency program (HEP) students, 67–72, 69 History and engineering, 295–296 Hobbes, Thomas, 104 Hodgson, Catherine, 402 Hold harmless agreements, 437 Holistic partnerships, 395–399 Holladay, J., 381 Holland, Barbara, 302, 403–404 Holland Matrix, 403–404 Holsapple, Matthew, 220 Hoop, K., 100–101
–Index –•–461
Hornung, Maria, 96 Horowitz, Carol, 194 How Can I Be Trusted? (Potter), 33 Howard, Jeffrey, xxxiv Howe, C. W., 414 Human Anatomy and Physiology course (University of Wisconsin–Superior), 267–268 Human Biology course (University of Wisconsin– Superior), 267–268 Human Resource Council of Canada, 189 Human Rights Activist Project, Global Kids, 59 Humanitarian audiology program, University of Texas at Dallas, 283–284, 283 (figure) Humanities education Art and Well Being course (Lingnan University), 257–261 French programs, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, 227–231 music and teacher education, 245–255 Performing Arts and Community Exchange (PACE) course, University of San Francisco, 233–237 Humphrey, Lynne, 402 Huq, J., 40 Identity development and preservice teacher experiences, 325–326 Identity work, 62–65 Ignorance, epistemologies of, 31–35 Ikeda, Elaine K., 437–438 Ilies, Remus, 201 Illes, Louise, 218 Illich, Ivan, 396 Imagination, sociological, 100–101 Immersion experiences Cabrini College Living and Learning Community, 95 Purdue University North Central, 343 Saint Joseph’s University, 138 Stellensbosch University, 375 Immersive model and management education, 202–203 Immigration, 56–57 Immordino-Yang, Mary H., 367–368 Impacts evaluation, 191–197 Impacts vs. outcomes, 192 Improvisation (improv) exercises, 95 In Defense of Politics (Kisby), 390 In Recovery (Jackson), 143 In Search of Common Space (McRae), 401 Indiana University Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning, 426 Indicators for engagement, 403 Individualism communitarianism, shift to, 432 community needs and impact vs., 48–49 neoliberalism and, 362 Informed consent agreements, 436 Insight, as civic engagement component, 69
Institute for Studies and Innovation in CommunityUniversity Engagement, University of Victoria, 406 Institute for Urban Agriculture and Nutrition, 300 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 299 Institutional approach to relationship-based service-learning, 135–140 Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), 194–195. See also Research Ethics Boards (REBs) Institutional support campus service-learning centers and, 139 community impact and, 191, 193 departmental engagement and, 413 faculty and, 171 importance of, 193 in institutionalization self-assessment rubric, 404 risk management and, 437 Social Services in the Deaf Community course (Towson University) and, 289 Institutionalization of community engagement, 401–406, 407 (table) Integrated framework for occupational therapy service-learning, 275–276, 275 (figure) Integrated models for situating community engagement, 404 Integration limitation, 117 Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies, 123–127 Integrity, 40 Intellectual disabilities, 258–261 Intensive Auditory Rehabilitation for Adult Hearing Loss (University of Texas at Dallas), 282 “Intention and witness” method, 182 Interdisciplinary studies academic service-learning (ASL) model for (Oakland University), 123–127 deaf studies and, 288 defined, 124 Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU), 85 Fresno state civic minor program and, 110 health sciences learning and, 273–275, 277 Interfaith dialogue, 94, 95–96 International Programs Stellenbosch University (IPSU), 373–376 International service-learning English active citizenship education, 387–391 humanitarian audiology program (University of Texas at Dallas), Africa, 283–284, 283 (figure) power relations and weServe program (Drexel University), 359–363 rural Wisconsin school project on Ghana, 379–384 Stellenbosch University SLCD course and affectivecognitive model of reflection, 365–377 Interpretism vs. positivism, 150–151 Interruptions, 7 Invasive Plants Association of Wisconsin, 266 Invisible Man (Ellison), 296
462–•– Index
Iowa Safe Schools, 397 Iowa Student Personnel Association, 4 Irwin, Rita L., 180 Israel, Barbara A., 194 Issues debates among students, 56, 56 (figure) Jackson, Bailey, 326 Jackson, Nora, 143 Jacoby, Barbara, 37, 38, 41, 172, 308 James, Mervyn, 240 James, T., 62 James, William, 108 Jamieson, Leah H., 297, 299 Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago, 353–355 Jelicic, Helena, 353 Jensen, Bjarne, 389 Jerome, Althea, 246–247 Jesse, Daniel, 425 Johnson, Annette, 352 Johnson, Mathew, 156 Johnston, S. W., 130 Jones, Patrick D., 296 Jones, Susan, 325, 388 Journal article rejections, 6 Journaling. See Reflection Joyce, Sharon A., 437–438 Junior Seminar, Columbia College, 100, 103–105 Just Health Care in Developing Nations course. Saint Joseph’s University, 137–138 Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do (Sandel), 102 Justice and injustice critical democratic citizenship and, 75–80 definitions of, 76, 77 emotional reactions to injustice, 18 utilitarianism and, 102 See also Race and ethnicity Justice and Peace Studies course, Georgetown University, 215–216 Justice-oriented citizenship about, 54 civic responsibility and, 430 critical democratic citizenship and, 78–79 Manhattan County School Activism Project, 53–59 See also Social justice education
Kelly, E., 76 Kelly, Millicent, 302 Kendall, Jane, 230 Keogh, Rosemary, 390 Kinefuchi, Etsuko, 361 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 298 King, Sherry, 380 Kingston, Ontario, 185–189 Kingston North Anglican Ministries, 185, 188 Kisby, Ben, 390 Kjelland, Paul, 298, 298 (figure) Klak, Thomas, xxxviii Klein, J. T., 124 Kleinman, Daniel, 310 Knight Owl project, Foundations of Management course, St. Ambrose University, 203–204 (sidebar), 204 “Knockout game” and virtue ethics, 18 Knowledge Art and Well Being course (Lingnan University) and knowledge transfer, 260 collaborative collegiality and, 419–420 as conversation, 11–12 epistemic vs. technocratic authority, 308, 309–310 Gadamer’s phronesis (practical wisdom), 12–15 hierarchies of, 336–338, 395 integration of, 126 prior, 327, 381 socially contingent knowledge production, 186 student knowledge and nonprofit organizations, 167 true vs. applied, 420 See also Epistemologies Knowles, Malcom S., 301 Knudsen, Lissa, 193 Kocos, Stan, 318 Kofinis, Chris, 132 Kohlberg, L., 24 Kolb, David A., 125, 202, 203, 206, 366, 367, 390, 433 Kolenko, Thomas, 222 Kozol, J., 338 Kremen School of Education, California State University, Fresno, 110 Kretzmann, John, 187, 189 (box), 418 Kronick, Robert F., 259 Kurth-Schai, R., 49 Kyriazis v. University of West Virginia, 437
K–12 Quality Service-Learning Standards (National Youth Leadership Council), 173 Kahne, Joseph, 54, 77–78, 290, 311, 389, 430 Kamat, Sangeeta, 362 Kant, Immanuel, 19, 138 Kari, Nancy N., 429, 430, 432 Karlberg, M., 48 Keith, William M., 308 Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 401
La Ruche d’Art (art hives), 179–184 Labor, free, 166 Ladd, Roger A., 240 Lampert, Nicolas, 298, 298 (figure) Lantz, Paula, 194 Latina/o critical race theory (LatCrit), 70 Lawrence-Lightfoot, Sara, 361 Lawson, Anne, 201 Le Grange, Lesley, 366 Leadership for social change, 100, 103–105
–Index –•–463
Learn and Serve grants (Corporation for National Service), 109, 172 Learning community needs and impact vs. individual learning, 48–50 expanding notion of, 398 learning styles, 125, 381–383 Learning communities, 139 Learning theory andragogy, 301–302 Art and Well Being course (Lingnan University) and, 258–259 immersive model and, 202–203 Legal guidelines and policy development, 132 Lemke, T., 362 Lerner, Jacqueline, 353 Lerner, Richard, 353 Letters to a Young Teacher (Kozol), 338 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 108 Liaison or connector position, 397–398 Liberal arts collaborative collegiality and, 417, 420–421 STEM disciplines and, 295–296, 299 Library Collection Capitalization project (Prince George Public Library), 211–212 Library-college partnership, 209–214 Listening, active, 136 Listening as holistic practice, 397 Liston, Daniel P., 330 Little Friends for Peace program, Georgetown University, 215–216, 219 Liu, G., 11 Lived experiences of community college students, 430–433 Lives-as-texts, 100–101, 103 Living Knowledge Network, 197 Lobes, Carol, 310 Locke, John, 104 Loeb, Paul, 102 Loughner, Jared, 141 “Lowdown: California’s Prisons Site, The” (KQED), 237 Lowe, Robert, 329 Loyola University–Chicago, 197 Lunch Time Book Buddies, 380 Mackiewicz, Jo, 302 Make the Road New York, 58–59 Making It Crazy (Estroff), 143 Management education. See Business and management education Manalive curriculum (Resolve to Stop the Violence Project), 233–234, 235 Manhattan County School Activism Project, 53–59 Martin, Amy, 156 Marx, Karl, 108 Mary Assumpta, Sister, 381–383
Masonic Pathways Senior Living Services, Alma, Michigan, 241–243 Matrices for engagement, 403–404 Mattie Miracle Cancer Foundation, 216 McCarthy, Anne, 291 McCarthy, F., 40 McCarthy, John M., 296 McClintock, Charles, 3 McIntosh, P., 64 McKay-Jackson, Cassandra, 352 McKnight, John, 187, 189 (box), 418 McMillan, Janice, 240–241 Mead, George H., 108 Meaning-making, 326–331, 431–432 Medieval plays, 239–243 Memorandum of agreement (MOA), 320 Menand, Louis, 420 Mental illness, 141–145 Mentorship, 343–349, 346 (figure), 348 (table) Métissage method, 182–183 Metropolitan Omaha Educational Consortium (MOEC), 425 Mezirow, J., 124 Michigan State University (MSU), 67–69 Microphysics, 360 Microsoft Project, 303 Milestones management, 302–303 Mill, John Stuart, 102, 138 Miller, William, 304 Mills, C. W., 100–101 Milstein, Tema, 193 Milwaukee Commandos, 298 Milwaukee School of Engineering University Scholars Program, 295–298 Minor in urban civic education, California State University, Fresno, 107, 110–111 Mission and mission statements “academic service-learning” and, 334–341 institutionalized engagement and, 402 policy development and, 130, 131 Missionary ideological approach to service, 361, 396 Mitchell, T., 62–63 Mize, Britt, 240 Modern Language Association, 229 Momentary pauses, 124–125 Monson, Nate, 397 Montano, David, 246 Moral education and virtue ethics, 18–20 Moral Philosophy Course, Saint Joseph’s University, 138 Morality plays, medieval, 239–241 Morgan, Ruth, 233 Morgridge Center for Public Service, 191–192 Morrison, M., 40 Morton, Keith, xxxiv, 40, 289, 290 Mozambique, 360 Mpofu, Elias, 272
464–•– Index
Mullaney, Emma Gaalaas, xxxviii Multicultural education business education and multicultural sensitivity, 220–221 Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC) and, 384 Critical Multicultural Pavilion, 384 cultural competency, 41–43, 42–43 (table) Deaf Studies and, 287–288 phronesis (practical wisdom) and, 14 Reading Improvement in the Elementary and Middle School course (St. Norbert College) and, 335 (sidebar) rural Wisconsin schools and, 379, 380–381 social justice vs., 55 teacher education and, 424 See also Diversity Multicultural Literature for Children course, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 175 Multilingual space, 70–71 Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project Guidebook (Gurin et al.), 79 Muro, J. A., 156 Music education, 245–255 Muthiah, Richard, 367 Myths of service-learning in business education, 202–206 Naidoo, Anthony V., xliii Nairn, Michael, 297 National and Community Service Trust Act, 172 National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Professional Preparation Standards, 344 National Center for Science and Civic Engagement, 267 National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), 55, 424, 425 National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 425 National Education Association (NEA), 425 National Service-Learning Clearing house, 227, 435–436, 436 (table) National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE), 89, 418 National Standards for Foreign Language in the 21st Century, 228 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 423 National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 417 National Youth Leadership Council (NYLC), 28, 130, 172, 173 Native American studies, 166, 167, 169, 176, 384 Nazareth College, 115–120 Nehrling, Sarah, 156 Neighborhood art hives, 179–184 Neoliberalism, 362 Networks, 7, 406, 407 (table) Networks of Centers of Excellence, 401 New Orleans, post-Katrina, 333, 334–341 New York Collective of Radical Educators (NYCoRE), 58
Newell, W. H., 124 Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle), 12, 14, 18 Nieto, Sonia, 380 Nine Events of Instruction (Gagne), 259 Nonprofit organizations benefits to, 165–167 building a partnership with, 168–170 finding the right fit, 155–158 obstacles with, 167–168 resume-building and, 219 Writing for Nonprofit Organizations course, Central College, 399 See also specific organizations Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 436–437 Norristown (PA) Community House, 97 North Coast Water Quality and Biotoxin Program Society, 209 Northern New England Campus Compact, 409 Northwestern University, 189 Nova Southeastern University v. Gross, 437 Nussbaum, M. C., 76, 366 Oakes, William C., 297, 299 Oakland University, 123 Obama, Barack, 57, 299 OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators, 206 Occupational therapy, 275–276, 275 (figure), 276 (table) Oesterle, Sabrina, 424 Office of Community-Based Research (OCBR), University of Victoria, 401, 406 Omaha, Nebraska, 171–177 Open source project management, 303 Openness to multiple perspectives, in critical democratic citizenship, 78 Organizational models for situating community engagement, 404–405 Orientations for students, 169 Osland, Joyce, 203 Outcomes vs. impacts, 192 Out-of-school time (OST) programming, 318 Outputs vs. outcomes and impacts, 192 Oyate, 384 P–16 service-learning partnerships, 171–177 Padgett, Robert, 288 Papastephanou, Marianna, 360, 363 PARE model (Preparation, Action, Reflection, Evaluation), 206, 230, 241–242 Parks, Rosa, 102 Participation, as critical democratic citizenship learning outcome, 77–78 Participatory action research (PAR), 259 Participatory approach and community-based participatory research, 148, 151 Participatory citizens, 430 Participatory citizenship education, 54
–Index –•–465
Participatory research, community-based (CBPR), 147–152, 149 (figure) Partnerships affiliation agreements for, 132 Agency Profile Form, 159–160 authenticity and, 40 benefits to nonprofit organizations, 165–167 closeness, equity and integrity in, 40 collaborative proposals, 88 as collegial collaborations, 417–422 community impact evaluation and, 197 community-based participatory research and, 148, 151 cycle of “served” and “server” in on-campus bilingual program, 68–69 department-driven sustainability and, 412–413 diversity and, 39–40, 41 feedback and, 149–150 finding the right fit, 155–160 Fresno state civic minor program and, 110 Gadamer’s phronesis (practical wisdom) and, 15 holistic, 395–399 long-term, 166, 301–302 P–16, 171–177 policy and, 129 reciprocity and, 40 relationship-based design of, 135–136 “relationships” vs., 40 roles, defining, 321–322 surveys with partner organizations, 304–305, 305 (sidebar) term, use of, 39 See also Community; specific projects and organizations Passion, as civic engagement component, 69 Paternalistic charity model, 33 Patient Access to Health Care course, Saint Joseph’s University, 137 Patton, Michael, 187 Payne, C. A., 217 Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire), 55, 108, 217 Peer mentoring, 347 Peirce, Charles Sanders, 108, 420 Penn State University, 405 Penney, Naomi, 195 People with chronic illness or disability (PCID), 271–277 Performing Arts and Community Exchange (PACE) course, University of San Francisco, 233–237 Performing Arts and Social Justice (PASJ) program, University of San Francisco, 233, 234, 237 Perry, W. G., Jr., 105–106 Personally responsible citizenship education, 54 Person-centered experiences, 136, 138, 140 Pesticide Justice Case exercise, 311–312 Phelps, Erin, 353 Philosophy, moral, 138 Phronesis (practical wisdom), 12–15
Physical therapy education, 271, 276, 276 (figure) Pigza, Jennifer, 404–405 Pittman, Karen, 353 Pivotal experiences, unexpected, 328–329 Placement models, 274–275, 289 Planning, urban and regional, 185–189 Planning for service-learning projects, 193. See also Design of service-learning programs Plants and People course, University of Wisconsin–Superior, 267 Plaut, Julie, 156 Polansky, Susan, 229, 231 Policy development in higher education, 129–133 Political literacy and social capital, 389–390 Pollinator stewardship project, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, 307–311 Pompa, Lori, 234 Ponterotto, J. G., 368 Poon, Patrick, 304 Positive youth development (PYD) approach, 353 Positivism vs. interpretism, 150–151 Potter, Nancy Nyquist, 33 Poverty, 318, 319 (table), 320, 362 Powell, Maria, 310 Power relations in international contexts, 359–363 Power sharing, 194 Practical beauty, theory of, 11–15 Practitioner-scholars action plans, 8, 8 (table) barriers and solutions, 4–7 collaborative collegiality and, 420–421 comparison between practitioners and scholars, 4 (table) Contribution to the Field Concept Guide, 5 (table) defined, 3–4 5 M Reflection Guide, 6 (table) scholar vs. bystander role, 3 Scholarship Environments Reflection Guide, 8 (table) Pragmatism, 11, 12, 108, 420 Pratsch, Samuel, 156, 158 Praxis, Freire on, 108 Precious Knowledge (film), 56, 57 Preservice teachers. See Teacher education President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll, 192, 395, 396, 417–418, 425 Preston, Anna, 246–247 Price, Bob, 433 Price, M., 40 Prince, Howard T., 102 Prince George Public Library Accounting Project, 209–214 Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), 206 Prior knowledge and experiences, 327, 381 Prisonersolidarity, 237 Privilege, 20, 31–32
466–•– Index
Problem solving affective-cognitive model of reflection and, 371 (table) Art and Well Being course (Lingnan University) and, 260 community problem solving, 86, 399 critical service-learning and, 354 dialogue and, 93 holistic partnerships and, 398, 399 multidisciplinary approach to, 101 power relations and, 359 reflection on, 204 as technical skill, 219 Problem-posing model, 217–218 Product model, 268 “Professing the Liberal Arts” (Shulman), 420–421 Professional development, 131–132, 145 Professional education and service-learning, 186 Progressive Education Network (PEN), 59 Project Citizen, 58 Project management and technology, 302–303 Project planning, insufficient, 193 Project-based model of impact, 195 Project-based research cycle, 195 Psycho-Ecological Systems Model (PESM), 195 Public awareness as benefit to nonprofit organizations, 166–167 Public deficit model, 308 Public homeplaces, 180, 181 Public Library Fund-Raising project (Prince George Public Library), 211 Puckett, J., 11 Purdue University North Central, 343 Purpose, 48–50, 54 Purposeful projects, 165–166 Putnam, Mark, 396, 399 Putting Community Service-Learning into Action, 189 Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, 185, 186 Race: The Power of an Illusion (film), 63 Race and ethnicity critical democratic citizenship learning outcomes and, 78–79 identity development, racial, 326 ignorance and, 32 Latina/o critical race theory (LatCrit), 70 Milwaukee and, 296 Nussbaum’s capabilities approach and the U.S. context, 76–77 preservice teacher experiences and, 327–331 as social construction, 63 structural thinking about, 79 U.S. demographic shifts, 379 White privilege, 32, 64 Racine Friendship Clubhouse (RFC), 141–145 Radical Math, 237
Rancourt, Denis G., 55 Rawls, J., 76, 104 Reacting to the Past (RTTP) curriculum, Cabrini College, 96, 97 Reading, Suzanne, 288 Reading Improvement in the Elementary and Middle School course (St. Norbert College), 333–341, 335–336 (sidebar) Reading the City course (Milwaukee School of Engineering), 296 Reality (three Rs model), 218–219 Reciprocity Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentor (ECE-SLM) model (Purdue University North Central) and, 345 French language projects (University of Wisconsin–Green Bay) and, 230 key components of, 339 partnerships and, 40 relationship-based model and, 136 “serving” and “being served” as interchangeable, 423 in six R’s model, 116, 118–119 Social Services in the Deaf Community course (Towson University) and, 290 in three Rs model, 221 transactional vs. reciprocal relationships, 201–202 TRIPS program (St. Norbert College) and, 339–340 Recognition and celebration (six R’s model), 116, 119 Reeb, Roger, 195 Reeler, D., 104 Reflection affective-cognitive model (Stellenbosch University), 365, 368–372, 371 (table), 372 (figure), 376–377 by all parties, 158 Art and Well Being course (Lingnan University) and, 260, 261 audiology programs (University of Texas at Dallas) and, 282 biology programs (University of Wisconsin–Superior) and, 267 conceptualization of service-learning and, 366–367 Creativity and Innovation course (Georgetown University) and, 216 critical, 50, 366–367, 424 DEAL model of, 365, 367, 376 “effective,” 367 English active citizenship education and, 390 ethical, 23–28 on feedback, 149–150 French language projects (University of Wisconsin–Green Bay) and, 230 health sciences education and, 277 ignorance and, 34–35 informal, with family or friends, 327–328 intentionally structured, 433 laddered model of, 433 linking across the curriculum, 434
–Index –•–467
music education project (University of Wisconsin–Superior) and, 250–251 open-ended questions and, 398 Performing Arts and Community Exchange (University of San Francisco) and, 235–236 philosophical foundation of, 366 pollinator stewardship project (University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire) and, 309 preservice teacher experiences and meaning-making, 326–331 Prince George Public Library Accounting Project and, 210 reflection essays, 89, 91–92 reflection papers, Queen’s University, 189 (box) rigorous, 433–434 routine thinking vs., 330 self-reflexive exercises on research, 150–151 significance of, 398 in six R’s model, 116, 119 on social class, 63 Sociology of Mental Illness course (University of Wisconsin–Parkside) and, 144–145 structured, 89 survey technology and, 305, 305 (sidebar) in three Rs model, 220 transformation of perspective and, 241 TRIPS program (St. Norbert College) and, 338, 340 (sidebar) “un-tweetable,” 117 Village Project (St. Norbert College) and, 320–321 What, So What, and What Next? template and, 282 Zlotkowski’s Three-Part Journal form, 34–35 Reflective Practitioner, The (Schön), 186 Reflexivity, 150–151, 186 Rehabilitation counseling, 276–277 Rehabilitation services education, 271–277 Reisman, Joel, 291 Reitenauer, V. L., 23 Relational approach to co-constructed risk management, 435–442 Relationship building “Building Family and Community Relationships” standard (NAEYC), 344 community-based learning partnerships and, 193 First Year Seminar: Youth Engaged in Service (Nazareth College) and, 116 TRIPS program (St. Norbert College) and, 341 Urban School of San Francisco and, 61 Relationship-based service-learning, 135–140 Relationships faculty-student, 62 partnerships vs., 40 transactional vs. reciprocal, 201–202 See also Community; Partnerships Release agreements, 436–437 Relevant and responsive service (six R’s model), 116, 118
Religion and interfaith dialogue, 94, 95–96 Repko, Allen F., 124, 126 Research by students community-based participatory research (CBPR), 147–152 community-based research, 15, 194–195 management education research model, 204–206 Manhattan County School Activism Project, 56 Research Ethics Boards (REBs), 149, 150, 151, 187. See also Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) Resiliency theory, 353 Resistance and power, 360–361 Resolve to Stop the Violence Project (RSVP), 233–234, 233 (figure) Resource sharing, 194 Resources, cross-cutting, 395, 397–398 Responsibility, sense of business education and, 221–222 individual subjectivity and, 362 issues debates and, 56 models of civic responsibility, 429–430 Social Responsibility scale, 354 Resume-building skills, 218–219 Rethinking Schools, 384 Reynolds, Alison, 246–247 Rhoads, Robert A., 127 Rice, Eugene, 11 Rice, Kathleen, 339 Rigor, academic, xxxiv Rigorous learning (six R’s model), 116, 118 Riley, Richard W., 228 Risk and reality assessment (six R’s model), 116, 119 Risk management current approaches to, 435–437, 436 (table) relational approach to co-constructed risk management, 435, 437–442, 438 (figure), 441 (figure) Risk Management Conversation Worksheet, 441 (figure) wallet cards, 439, 440 (figure) Risk mapping, 439 Ritz, Anne, 241 Robinson, Jeannetta, 298 Robinson, Mimsie, 194 Rodriguez, Jo Ann, 142–144 Rohd, Michael, 235 Root, S., 398, 425 Rosaen, C., 11 Rosin, M., 12, 14 Ross, Carolyn, 396 Rubin, Irwin, 203 Rubrics for engagement, 403, 404 Rudisill, Mary, 424 Rural school districts, 380 Russell, Joshua, 246 Rynes, Sara, 201
468–•– Index
Saint Joseph’s University (SJU), 135–137, 139 Saltmarsh, J., 54, 87, 172, 251, 297, 402, 414 Sandel, Michael, 102, 103 Sandmann, Lorilee, 405 Sandoval, Jennifer, 193 Sarena, Seifer, 194 Schmidt, Margaret, 246 Schmiede, Angela, 139 Schnack, Karsten, 389 Scholarship and practice. See Practitioner-scholars Scholarship Environments Reflection Guid, 8 (table) Schön, Donald, 186 School social work, 351–355 Schuetze, Hans, 402 Schulman, Lee, 12, 14 Schwandt, Thomas, 368 Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) audiology programs (University of Texas at Dallas), 279–286 biology projects (University of Wisconsin–Superior), 266–269 deaf studies (Towson University), 287–294 deliberation, scientific, 312–314 health sciences (University of Sydney), 271–277 integrating service-learning into science courses, 265–266 liberal arts and, 295–296, 299 pollinator stewardship project (University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire), 307–311 technology, 301–305 urban agriculture (Milwaukee School of Engineering), 295–300 Science shop model, 196, 197 SeBlonka, Kristy, 156 Seeing—and Speaking—the City course (Milwaukee School of Engineering), 296 Seider, S., 49 Self, decentering of, 363 Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education, 404 Self-awareness arts-based, 180 as core competency, 351 management education and, 204 occupational therapy and, 276 (table) Urban School of San Francisco program and, 62 See also Reflection Self-centered service, challenge of, 117 Self-efficacy and self-worth, 431–432 Self-management, 186 Self-reflection. See Reflection Senor, B., 40 Senses, imagination, and thought as human capability, 76 “Server” and “served” or “servee” as cycle, 68–69 do-gooder effect, 156
as interchangeable, 423 role assumptions about, 116–117 “Service” expanding notion of, 398 learning, relationship to, 387–388 as term, in U.K. and U.S., 391 Service Learning Seminars (University of Nebraska at Omaha), 173–175 (sidebar), 173–177 Service-learning as academic discipline, 107–111 benefits of, xxxiii civic engagement and, xxxviii community service vs., xxxvii, 380 conceptualization of reflection and, 366–367 controversies in, 156 critical service-learning vs., 68 definitions of, xxxvii, 54, 130, 172, 227 English active citizenship education vs., 387–391 focus of, 48–50 history and philosophy of, 47–48 participatory action research and, 259 success factors, 156–157 technology, integration with, 301–305 terminology and, 38–39 See also specific projects and topics Service-Learning Academy, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 425 Service-Learning and Student Diversity Outcomes (Holsapple), 220 Service-Learning Code of Ethics, 436 Service-Learning Essentials (Jacoby), xxxiv Service-Learning in Community Development (SLCD) course, Stellenbosch University, 365, 368–377, 369 (table) Service-learning Opportunities in Technical Communication (SLOT-C) Database, 302 Service-learning research schemes (SLRS), 257–261 Sgoutas, Gerakina Arlene, 20 Shared governance method, 130 Shiarella, Ann Harris, 291 Shor, Ira, 234 Shulman, Lee, 420–421 Shumer, Robert, 241 Sigmon, R., 39, 227, 366 Signed languages, 288 Simpson, Luann, 143 Situated learning, 50 Six R’s model, 115–120 Skype, 304 Small Health Organization Partnership Program, 401 Smith, D., 150 Smith, Thomas J., 352 Smith-Tolken, Antoinette, xliii Social and emotional learning (SEL), 351, 352, 354 Social awareness, 62, 261 Social capital and political literacy, 389–390. See also Cultural capital
–Index –•–469
Social change agents, students as, 359, 361–362 Social class, self-reflection on, 63 Social construction of race, 63 Social distance, 69 Social justice education bicultural, bilingual program and, 70 community-based participatory research and, 148 developmental approach, 326 Urban School of San Francisco program and, 62 weServe program (Drexel University) and, 362 See also Justice-oriented citizenship Social media, 64 Social reconstructionism, 54 Social Responsibility scale, 354 Social sciences. See Social work; Sociology; Teacher education Social Services in the Deaf Community course, Towson University, 288–294 Social work, 351–355 Sociological imagination, 100–101 Sociology Duffy Community Partnerships course, Beloit College, 421 Sociology of Mental Illness course (University of Wisconsin–Parkside), 141–145 Youth, Culture, and Deviance course (Saint Joseph’s University), 136–137 Sociology of Mental Illness course, University of Wisconsin–Parkside, 141–145 Soft skills, 219–221 Softley, Donald, 194 Software applications, 303–305 Somatic training, 234 Sophomore Seminar, Columbia College, 99–100, 101–103 Soul of a Citizen, The (Loeb), 102 South Africa, 38 Southern Poverty Law Center, 384 Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), 172 Southwest Florida paradigm for community-engaged scholarship, 85–92, 87 (table) Spheres of engagement, 87 SRI International, 172–173 St. Norbert College, 317–323, 333–341 Stages of Faith (Fowler), 96 Staggered service-learning placement model, 274–275, 274 (figure) Stakeholders community-based learning and, 142 policy, and diversity of, 129 relational approach to co-constructed risk management and, 435–442 See also Community; Partnerships Stanton, Timothy, 148, 261 State University of New York–Buffalo, 110 Steering Council on Civic Engagement, University of Victoria, 405 Stellenbosch University, 365, 373–376
STEM. See Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Stensen, Christine, 240 Stephens, Jason, 240 Stereotypes ignorance and, 32, 33 pedagogical practices and, xxxvii of people with mental illness, 141–142 preservice teacher experiences and, 325, 327–331 prior experiences, existing values, and, 327 rural schools and, 380 social distance and, 69 Stetsenko, A., 49 Stevens, Martin, 240 Stigma, 138, 141, 145. See also Stereotypes Stocking, G. W., 108 Stoecker, Randy, 155, 156, 158, 192, 195, 196 Storefront classrooms, 180, 181–182 Strand, Katherine, 245 Strategic ignorance, 32, 33 Strategic planning, 402 Strauss, Anselm, 326 Strengths, playing to, 6 Strengths-based perspective, 353 Structural social work perspective, 147 Structural thinking about racial inequality, 79 Stuart, C., 151 Student affair professionals and faculty, 333–341 Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) system, 309 Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains survey, 267 Student orientations, 169 Student-directed model and management education, 203–204 Students for Community Service (SCS), California State University, Fresno, 107 Studio d’art St-Sulpice, 184 Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning, St. Norbert College, 317, 318, 322, 334–341 Sullivan, W., 12, 14 Summer Intensive Auditory Rehabilitation Conference (SIARC), 282 Superior Middle School, 248 SurveyMonkey, 304–305 Sustainability cautions on community engagement in teacher education, 423–426 department-driven strategies for, 409–414 institutionalization of community engagement, 401–406, 407 (table) Sustainable business project (St. Ambrose University), 204–206, 205 (sidebar) Sweet Water Organics, 296, 297 System approaches for engagement, 403 Tactics, de Certeau on, 361 Task Force on Civic Engagement, University of Victoria, 405 Task management, 302–303
470–•– Index
Taylor, Berry, 218 Taylor, Carolyn, 186 Taylor, Marilyn, 218 Teacher education accreditation standards and field experience, 424 cautions on community engagement in, 423–426 Early Childhood Service-Learning Mentor (ECE-SLM) model (Purdue University North Central), 343–349, 346 (figure), 348 (table) experiences and meaning-making of preservice teachers, 325–331 music education and, 245–255 preservice teacher education and academic service-learning, 246–247 TRIPS project (St. Norbert College) and faculty–student affairs collaboration, 333–341 Village Project (St. Norbert College), 317–323, 321 (figure), 323 (figure) Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), 424, 425 Teaching Tolerance magazine, 379, 381, 384 Techne vs. phronesis, 12, 13 (table) Technocrats, undergraduate, 307–310 Technology, 301–305 Ten-Point Plan for Advancing and Institutionalizing Public Engagement (University of Minnesota), 405 Terms of Enjoyment project (Prince George Public Library Accounting Project), 212 Terry, Alice, 231 Theater medieval drama project (Alma College), 239–243 Performing Arts and Community Exchange course (University of San Francisco), 234–237 Theater Bay Area CA$H Grant, 235 Theodoulou, Stella Z., 132 Theory application-theory dichotomy, 108 Bringing Theory to Practice Project (American Association of Colleges and Universities), 99–106 business management fads vs., 201 calls for, 11 critical service-learning and, 352–353 of democratic engagement, 86–87 developmental, 103, 325–326, 330–331 Latina/o critical race theory (LatCrit), 70 learning theory, 202–203, 258–259, 301–302 practical beauty theory and Gadamer’s phronesis (practical wisdom), 11–15 practitioner-scholars and, 3–4 pragmatism, 11–12 resiliency theory, 353 third-space theory, 180 Theory of Social and Economic Organization, The (Weber), 419 “They Say/I Say” methods, 96 Thibodeau, Linda M., 280, 282
“Thick” description, 368 Third-space theory, 180 Thomas, Ardel, 396 Thomas, Jacqueline, 231 Thompson, Dennis, 313 Thomson, Ann Marie, xliii, 38 Three Rs model (reality, reflection, reciprocity), 218–221 3-I model (initiation, implementation, impact), 195 Time academic schedules and, 167 community-based participatory research and, 151 as controversy, 156 department-driven sustainability and, 413 practitioner-scholars and, 4–5 real-world vs. academic, 396 scheduling, 230, 250 technology and, 301–302 technology and time management, 302–303 Toronto Christian Resource Centre (TCRC), 189 Towson University, 288–289 Training for faculty, 168–169, 173–175 (sidebar), 173–177, 411–412 Training requirements of nonprofit organizations, 167, 168–169 Trank, Christine, 201 Transactional vs. reciprocal relationships, 201–202 Transformative learning, 124 Transparency agenda setting and, 131 Carnegie Classification and, 403 co-constructed risk management and, 441–442 TRIPS program (St. Norbert College) and, 340–341 trust and, 194 Trello, 303, 305 Trent Centre for Community-Based Education, 197, 401 Troppe, Marie, 404–405 “Troubles” and “issues,” 100, 101 Trust, 33, 69, 194 Tryon, Elizabeth, 155, 192, 195 Tucker, Mary, 291 Turner, Marlene, 203 Turning Responsibility into Powerful Service (TRIPS) program, 334–341, 336–337 (sidebar) 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CLC), Green Bay Area Public School District, 317, 318, 323 Two Dollar Challenge, 362 Understanding and Promoting Student Engagement in University Learning Communities (Krause), 94 United Kingdom, 387–391 University centers for service-learning, on-campus Community Engagement Center, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 423 as institutional support, 139
–Index –•–471
interdisciplinary service-learning and, 277 liaison or connector position, 397–398 organizational models for situating community engagement and, 404–405 Sturzl Center for Community Service and Learning (St. Norbert College), 317, 318, 322, 333–341 University of Wisconsin–Superior, 268 University of Illinois at Chicago, 353–355 University of Maine at Machias, 410–411 University of Minnesota, 405, 426 University of Minnesota Community Service-Learning Center, 230 University of Nebraska at Omaha, 171, 173–177, 423–426 University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 110 University of Pennsylvania, 299, 402, 405 University of San Diego Center for Community Service-Learning, 109 University of San Francisco, 233–237 University of Sydney, 273–277 University of Victoria, 401, 405–406 University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, 308–310 University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, 227, 228, 231 University of Wisconsin–Madison, 131, 196, 197, 384 University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh, 381 University of Wisconsin–Parkside, 141–143 University of Wisconsin–Superior, 247–248, 251, 252–255, 266–269 Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security Research and Practice, 299–300 Urban agriculture program, Milwaukee School of Engineering, 295–300 Urban civic education minor, California State University, Fresno, 107, 110–111 Urban School of San Francisco, 61–65 Utilitarianism, 19, 102, 138 Value exploration and virtue ethics, 19, 20 Values, core, 24, 25 (sidebar) Vickers, M., 40 Victory Garden Initiative, 296–297 Victory Over Violence Park, Milwaukee, 295, 297–298, 298 (figure) Village Project, St. Norbert College, 317–323, 321 (figure), 323 (figure) Virtue ethics, 17–20 Viruell-Fuentes, Enda, 194 Visioning workshops, 187–188 Visual arts education, 257–261 Vitiello, Domenic, 297, 299–300 Voices of Justice (VoJ) Living and Learning Community, Cabrini College, 93–97 Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (VPA), 435 Volunteerism vs. service-learning, 156 Vortruba, James, 404
Waivers and release agreements, 436–437 Walker, David, 390 Ward, Elaine, 402 Ward, Kelly, 246 Washington, Valora, 345 WebCT, 369 Weber, Max, 108, 419 Weerts, David, 405 Weigert, Kathleen, 148 Wells, Gail, 404 Wenger, Etienne, 419 Wergin, Jon F., 414 WeServe “Service through Innovation” program, Drexel University, 359–363 West Chester University, 110 Westheimer, Joel, 54, 77–78, 290, 311, 389, 430 Westley, Frances, 187 What, So What, and What Next? reflection template, 282 White, Sue, 186 White privilege, 32, 64 Whitmore, E., 151 Wilcox, Elizabeth, 210 Wilczenski, Felicia, 387 Williams, Doyle, 219 Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards, 249 Wisconsin Point, 266–267 Witmer, Judith T., 131 Wittman, Amanda, 405 Women’s Media Center (WMC), 28 Woodford, Paul, 246 World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 275 Wright State University, 110 Writing for Nonprofit Organizations course, Central College, 399 Writing for Real (Ross and Thomas), 396 Writing the City, Righting the City course (Milwaukee School of Engineering), 296 Ye, Feifei, 202 Yeo, Fred, 380 Yorio, Patrick, 202 Youngblood, Susan, 302 Youth, cultural perceptions of role of, 48–49 Youth, Culture, and Deviance course, Saint Joseph’s University, 136–137 Youth Power Project, Make the Road New York, 59 Youth Voice One Vision (YVOV), City of Rochester, 115–119 Zeichner, Kenneth M., 325, 330 Zhou, Lianxi, 304 Zigurs, Ilze, 210 Zimmerman, Brenda, 187 Zinn Education Project, 384 Zlotkowski, E., 34, 103, 414
We are delighted to announce the launch of a streaming video program at SAGE! SAGE Video POMJOF DPMMFDUJPOTBSF EFWFMPQFE JO QBSUOFSTIJQ XJUI MFBEJOH BDBEFNJDT TPDJFUJFT BOE QSBDUJUJPOFST JODMVEJOH NBOZ PG 4"(&T PXO BVUIPST BOE BDBEFNJD QBSUOFST UP EFMJWFS DVUUJOHFEHF QFEBHPHJDBM DPMMFDUJPOT NBQQFE UP DVSSJDVMBS OFFET "WBJMBCMF BMPOHTJEF PVS CPPL BOE SFGFSFODF DPMMFDUJPOT PO UIF SAGE Knowledge QMBUGPSN DPOUFOU JT EFMJWFSFE XJUI DSJUJDBM POMJOF GVODUJPOBMJUZ EFTJHOFE UP TVQQPSU TDIPMBSMZ VTF SAGE Video DPNCJOFT PSJHJOBMMZ DPNNJTTJPOFE BOE QSPEVDFE NBUFSJBM XJUI MJDFOTFE WJEFPT UP QSPWJEF B DPNQMFUF SFTPVSDF GPS TUVEFOUT GBDVMUZ BOE SFTFBSDIFST
NEW IN 2015! t $PVOTFMJOH BOE 1TZDIPUIFSBQZ t &EVDBUJPO
sagepub.com/video #sagevideo
t .FEJB BOE $PNNVOJDBUJPO