Community Leadership

Community Leadership 1

COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP:

AN ANALYSIS OF AND APPROACH TO REFRAMING CRITICAL SERVICE-LEARNING

A project submitted to the

Department of Educational Studies and Leadership

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the

MASTER OF ARTS

in Educational Studies

2009

Submitted by:

Jessica L. King

BA, University of Cincinnati, 2007

Committee Chair: Vanessa Allen-Brown, PhD

Committee Member: MJ Woeste, EdD


ABSTRACT

Through an examination of the history and current manifestations of service-learning, one of the goals

of this research is to not only compile an extensive review of the associated literature but to point to

areas of concern and critique. That discussion is followed by a course sequence proposal of what could

be envisioned as the next phase of experiential learning, placed in the context of critical service-

learning. This model embraces a long-term commitment that is free of artificial boundaries by discipline,

while being a simultaneously student-centered and community-centered approach to service-learning.

The course sequence, Community Leadership, is intended to create lasting, transformational change for

everyone involved.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 4

An Ongoing Discourse of Terminology and Intentions 5

A Closer Look at Pedagogy, Philosophy, and Underlying Principles 11

Desired and Demonstrated Outcomes 17

Case Studies 21

Limitations, Obstacles, and Future Directions 28


Identity and Community Awareness 41

Structural Inequalities and Leadership 43

Social Justice and Commitment to Action 45

Conclusion 47

References 49

Appendix A: Honors Seminars Request for Proposals 56

Appendix B: Community Leadership Summary 58


INTRODUCTION

No person exists in isolation from a larger whole, much as no community exists without its

citizens. Institutions of higher education find themselves located within communities and subsequently

bear a responsibility to acknowledge and embrace their fundamental connectedness to these locales.

Their graduates must progress to the oft-referenced “real world” of these local communities and

beyond, where they will be expected to apply the skills they have diligently committed themselves to

learning during the four- (or more) year moratorium experienced in pursuit of their degree (Eifler,

Kerssen-Griep, & Thacker, 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999). Are institutions of higher education preparing their

graduates for this challenge? Our evolving society requires young professional entering the workforce to

not only be able to work diligently and follow direction, but to think critically through complex situations

and novel moments, to create visions, and bring insightful outlooks and sound judgments to their work

(Colby, Ehrlick, Beaumont, Rosner, & Stephens, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Simmons & Roberts-Weah,

2000). Beyond the sheer ability to apply academic skills and critical thinking comes the challenge of

active citizenship to make good, ethical use of one’s talents, gifts, and knowledge in order to impact

society and larger social structures (Schulz, 2007). Can this not also be the true test of academic success

and preparedness? This push toward civic engagement is the root of the 2009 Edward M. Kennedy

Service America Act and will continue to characterize the political and social nature of our country as we

move forward (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2009).

It is within this symbiotic and cyclical existence that we find two pressing but united points

permeating academia: the need for accountability in higher education and the growth and exploration

of the role of active citizens in today’s increasingly interconnected society. It could be argued that these

two movements are parallel to the established approach of service-learning as both an experiential

learning pedagogy and a means of achieving active citizenship. Regardless of the chronology, service-

learning in its many forms will undoubtedly prove to be influenced and expanded in the shadow of these


larger initiatives, which raises a third, key question: What is the role of service-learning in higher

education and the larger goal of not only graduating academically-enlightened and motivated young

adults but, further, in pointing those with such education and privilege in the direction of their

communities, to the exploration of community needs and social justice that would allow others to

actualize their own interests and needs?

Through an examination of the history and current manifestations of service-learning, one of the

goals of this research is to not only compile an extensive review of the associated literature but to point

to areas of concern and critique. That discussion is followed by a course sequence proposal of what

could be envisioned as the next phase of experiential learning, placed in the context of critical service-

learning. This model embraces a long-term commitment that is free of artificial boundaries by discipline,

while being a simultaneously student-centered and community-centered approach to critical service-

learning. The course sequence, Community Leadership, is intended to create lasting, transformational

change for everyone involved.

AN ONGOING DISCOURSE OF TERMINOLOGY AND INTENTIONS

Experiential learning is an umbrella phrase used to describe any range of activities intended to

merge classroom theory and real world practice (Cantor, 1997). A key foundation of such experiential

learning is that experience and education are inseparable and cumulative (Dalton & Ingram, 2004).

Further, progressive educators like John Dewey advocated for education as a means of not only personal

growth and development but as a way to integrate young people into an equitable society, devoid of “-

isms” and injustices (Densmore, 2000). Profession-oriented approaches to service-learning include such

activities as internships, student-teaching opportunities, cooperative education placements, clinical

rotations and residencies in the medical field, among other forms. Parallel opportunities may be thought

of as the more traditional, straight-to-employment preparation options often referred to as vocational


training. Vocational training is frequently stigmatized for its “blue collar” nature and lack of theoretical

and academic foundation. Further confounded among these limitations of vocational training is the

history of tracking and ability grouping that often funneled so many students into such professions or

fields due to their ascribed characteristics and the perhaps short-sighted perspective of their teachers,

counselors, and mentors (Noddings, 2006). Regardless of the precise form or the underlying social

current driving the various activities, experiential education in its broader form has a deeply entrenched

history in the educational system, both within formal and informal educational settings.

In addition to these approaches, other forms of experiential learning, some rooted in the

seminal works of Dewey and other progressive and constructivist theorists, have gained a stronger

following in recent years and are the focus of the research presented here. In particular, a subgroup of

experiential learning opportunities are intended to not only merge the academic and the world outside

of the classroom, while incorporating a strong focus on service that, in many cases, may be intended to

supersede purely professional outcomes. These activities transition into a pedagogy that, like those

discussed above, may be classified under any range of terms and embrace an even more elaborate

range of foci and desired learning objectives and outcomes. Depending on the focus, the discipline, the

institution, and the individual disposition of the leader(s) of the experience, these differences become

not only a distinction in terminology but, in some cases, a crucial differentiation pertaining to the true

intention of the approach as it relates to both immediate and long-term outcomes (Bednarz, Chalkley,

Fletcher, Kay, Heron, Mohan, et al., 2008). To understand the foundation behind these experiences, it is

imperative to analyze not only the words used to describe these opportunities in higher education, but

to closely examine what associations come along with the terms of choice. What follows certainly falls

short of being an exhaustive list, given the dynamic nature of language and the infinite combinations of

words and associations that can be entrenched in academia. With that in mind, the author has strived to

highlight those key words and phrases leading to an accurate enough depiction of what most frequently


occurs in the literature on experiential learning that may or may not fulfill the triad of merging theory,

practice, and service. The phrases analyzed here include: volunteerism, community service, community

and civic engagement, service learning and service-learning, and critical service-learning.

For the sake of parsimony, volunteerism and community service have enough overlap in their

intentions as discussed in the literature that their analysis can unfold simultaneously. Of first importance

to note, nothing within the definition of such experiences requires or specifically recommends that they

be merged with the academic or an underlying theory of action. Various authors have pointed to ways in

which a spirit of volunteerism and community service is ingrained in the history of the United States,

irrelevant from curricular concerns (Enos & Morton, 2003; Hollander & Hartley, 2003; Oden & Casey,

2007). Volunteerism, for example, is a way in which people can help others at the individual level,

independent of governmental or structural intervention. Densmore (2000) suggests that this approach

alleviates temporal social tensions or problems with no focus on underlying issues or social ills. As an

example, while volunteering at a soup kitchen each Thanksgiving is a charitable gesture that certainly

serves a function and fulfills a temporary need, it does not move to a deeper level of service or

engagement, one that could, perhaps, address why there is a need for soup kitchens in the first place.

Further, volunteerism and community service are often enacted through a “one-directional” and

hierarchical approach, where one relatively privileged group has services to offer to another, needy

group (Enos & Morton, 2003; Jacoby, 2003).

Taking these good intentions a step further brings us to notions of community and civic

engagement. While there is almost certainly overlap between the lexicon of community service and

community engagement, many have purported that “engagement” moves closer to a picture of

citizenship grounded in the collectivity rather than efforts at individual, isolated acts of charity or

volunteer activity (Densmore, 2000; O’Grady, 2000). While there may have been a recent surge in such

activities, “*t+he grass-roots movement to reengage citizens in community building has been going on


for at least two decades… when successful, such efforts serve as a powerful antidote to the cynicism

about national politics and the possibilities for citizen influence” (Hollander & Hartley, 2003, p. 304).

This movement grew from a sentiment that individual interests were being advanced before

community, with an intention to return the focus to the interconnectedness of our interests and actions

(Enos & Morton, 2003). Emphasizing the collectivity, civic and community engagement may or may not

come to involve more long-term activities as compared to volunteering or community service. Again, the

focus here is on citizenship and engagement in the community, with no explicit or necessary

connections to the world of academia.

This important distinction leads to service-learning. Activities of volunteerism or community

service move closer to the realm of service-learning when they are intentionally and purposefully linked

with a focus on the academic (McClam, Diambra, Burton, Fuss, & Fudge, 2008; O’Grady, 2000). Some

frame service-learning as “*serving+ the needs of a marginalized group while acquiring necessary

knowledge, skills, and dispositions to which they would not otherwise have access” (Eifler, Kerssen-

Griep, & Thacker, 2008). Even though the authors go on to explain that this can be a highly reciprocal

relationship with all parties involved learning and growing, this definition brings forth a particularly

hierarchical and student-centered characterization, wherein students possess a knowledge that the

community or those they serve needs, arguably perpetuating inequality by entering the dialogue seeing

a group of privilege reaching out to a “marginalized” group. Further, service-learning necessitates a

more reciprocal relationship than may otherwise be found through the previously articulated constructs,

wherein the student is both serving and learning, growing and helping. Stated another way, the “student

is not the all-knowing expert who chooses to offer services to a needy community. Rather, the student

serves as a potential resource who may possess what the community members want or need” (Bender

& Randall, 2005, p. 85). While some researchers (i.e., Rosenberger, 2000) have questioned the very use

of the word “service” in characterizing such activities due to its seemingly inherent hierarchical


implications, others have defended the use of the term as they advocate for a more encompassing

definition of the word when used in the context of service-learning. Namely, “Service-learning thus

stands in contrast to the traditional, paternalistic, one-way approach to service, where one person or

group has resources that they share with a person or group that they assumes lacks resources.

Reciprocity also eschews the traditional concept of volunteerism, which is based on the idea that a more

competent person comes to the aid of a less competent” (Jacoby, 2003, p. 4).The incorporation of

reciprocity and positive outcomes for all involved is an extremely important aspect of service-learning as

pedagogy.

Many educators would agree, however, that what nudges simple and perhaps isolated

volunteerism into true service and service-learning is the integration of reflection alongside academic

study and action, which work together to address community needs (Rosenberger, 2000). In fact, a

distinction has been made between service learning and service-learning, with some asserting that the

hyphen shows the true interconnectedness of learning and action, joined by and through reflection

(Eyler & Giles, 1999; Jacoby, 2003; Oden & Casey, 2007). In order for service-learning to be a truly

academic and civically-oriented pedagogy, it requires an intentional focus on both the academic and

related needs of students, along with a purposeful focus on the needs of the community, as defined by

the community. One of the more succinct and all-encompassing definition of this approach was

advanced by Ash and Clayton (2004): “Service-learning, a form of experiential education, is a

collaborative teaching and learning strategy designed to promote academic enhancement, personal

growth, and civic engagement. Students render meaningful service in community settings that provide

experiences related to academic material. Through guided reflection, students examine their

experiences critically, thus enhancing the quality of both their learning and their service” (p. 138). To a

greater or lesser degree, these are the goals with which practitioners of service-learning approach such

learning opportunities in higher education.


The prevalence of opportunities to pursue service-learning at the collegiate level has grown

exponentially in recent years (Colby, Ehrick, Beaumont, Rosner, & Stephens, 2000). Schulz (2007)

articulated the point that all disciplines provide their students with concepts and theories intended for

practical use but, in one regard, it is the linkage with service-learning that actually cultivates that utility.

With that in mind, a wide array of courses, disciplines, departments, and institutions across the country

have incorporated some form of service-learning into their pedagogies. These disciplines include

business (Govekar & Rishi, 2007); communication (Borden, 2007; Schulz, 2007); education (Eifler,

Kerssen-Griep, & Thacker, 2008; Renner, 2009; Téllez, 2000); electronic media (Dalton & Ingram, 2004);

family and consumer sciences (Toews & Cerny, 2005); human service (McClam, Diambra, Burton, Fuss, &

Fudge, 2008); interior design (Sterling, 2007); nursing (Lashley, 2007); 2006); physical and occupational

therapy (Bender & Randall, 2005); psychology (Simons & Cleary, public policy (Johnson & Chope, 2007);

sociology (Luquet, 2009; Kouri, 2007); Spanish (Bloom, 2008); and women’s studies (Bettcher, 2007;

Ituarte, 2007; Ward, 2007; Williams & Ferber, 2008), among others. Despite this evidence of a wide-

ranging application of service-learning, it must also be acknowledged that the vast majority of such

ventures occur in so-called “soft” disciplines, such as the social sciences (Butin, 2006).

Much as reflection is needed to merge learning and service in order to constitute service-

learning, the nature and quality of the service itself is vital to result in an optimal experience. As one

author wrote, “Service should not be undertaken merely to nudge students toward civic engagement,

especially when they are earning college credit to do so… Students should work toward an education in

humanity and social change, not solely service and philanthropy” (Roberts, 2008, p. 102). This

movement toward not just community engagement married to the academic setting, but toward doing

all of that while simultaneously leaning toward social change leads to a particular branch of service-

learning, often referenced as critical service-learning (Mitchell, 2007). The point here is that it is not

enough to simply put in a set number of hours of service to the community to fulfill a course


requirement or expectation. Rather, critical service-learning pushes the envelope, requiring and

expecting that through their experiences “students see the larger social phenomena contributing to why

people are in need in the first place, and will thereby be inspired into social action,” characterized as a

transformational learning experience (Téllez, 2000, p. 76). Students will not only see the pressing

urgency and need of now but also become cognizant of the underlying structural and root causes of

such need and disadvantage, thereby igniting a desire to create lasting and meaningful change rather

than temporal relief (Oden & Casey, 2007; Roberts, 2008). This need to see change and intention to

foster equality, to improve the human condition, bridges the gulf between service for charity and service

for social justice (Boyle-Baise, Bridgwaters, Brinson, Hiestand, Johnson, & Wilson, 2003; Butin, 2006;

Goodman, 2000). As Mitchell (2007) wrote, “Belief in, hope for, and imagination of a different kind of

society is the entry point for theorizing about social justice” (p. 102). The unity of theory and action

inherent in service-learning allows us to begin the journey toward realizing social justice (Schulz, 2007).

For the sake of clarity, critical service-learning will be employed throughout the remainder of

this work to distinguish those programs that not only merge the academic and the real world but that do

so in the context of an engaged, critical pedagogy designed to be both collaborative and

transformational in its intention to work toward goals of social change and social justice. Note that,

while social justice is explicitly incorporated into this definition, it is a piece of critical service-learning,

rather than its sole domain. In other words, “service-learning is a vehicle for social justice,” actualized by

way of multicultural education as a method of pedagogy (O’Grady, 2000, p. 2). Both of these elements

will be further explored throughout the duration of the current research.

A CLOSER LOOK AT PEDAGOGY, PHILOSOPHY, AND UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES

Various pedagogical techniques inform service-learning. To be clear, however, many researchers

(e.g., Jacoby, 2003) have advanced service-learning as both pedagogy and philosophy, particularly when


viewed from the critical perspective of the current research. As a practice, service-learning is inherently

inductive and constructivist (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Goodman, 2000; Noddings, 2006; Rogers, 2001).

Further, Butin (2006) maintained that service-learning “ is an amalgam of… experiential education,

action research, critical theory, progressive education, adult education, social justice education,

constructivism, community-based research, multicultural education, and undergraduate research,” in

addition to being classified as “a form of community service, as a pedagogical methodology, as a

strategy for cultural competence and awareness, as a social justice orientation, and as a philosophical

worldview” (p. 490). Much as with the terminology of experiential education, the nature of the

underlying principles to implement a service-learning course(s) depends to an extent on the preferences

and dispositions of the facilitator, discipline, institution, and community partnership. As one attempt at

reconciling such multiplicity, Honnet and Poulsen (as cited in Oden & Casey, 2007, pp. 18-19) published

the Wingspread Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service and Learning, including such charges

as the need for all activities to be both responsible and challenging, requiring critical reflection, having

clear goals for all stakeholders, being collaborative with an element of commitment, incorporating

adequate training, maintaining the best interests of all constituents, and engaging diverse populations.

As already discussed, in order for service-learning to constitute a true learning experience, the

service activity must be integrally tied to the academic content. In line with that need, the seminal work

of Freire (2006) provides guidance in pivotal ways. First, elements of dialogic education are valuable,

wherein the perspectives, experiences, and knowledge of both teacher and student must be respected

and valued throughout the process. Students will be engaged in the community and will have authentic,

often troublesome, sometimes overwhelming experiences that must be acknowledged and discussed,

just as teachers have insight to share about their own lived experiences and activities in addition to their

academic foundation and background (Nagda, Gurin, & Lopez, 2003). Another important contribution of

Freire that pertains to the pedagogy of service learning is the concept of praxis, relating to the continual


cycle of action and reflection. Engaging in the community (action) is a crucial element of service but, as

stated earlier, reflection is what truly binds the service to the learning, making service-learning an

academic endeavor with such strong potential (Lashley, 2007). One recurrent model of praxis involves a

period of preparation prior to action, followed by action, then reflection on the experiences and learning

outcomes (Bednarz, 2008; Horton, Kohl, & Kohl, 1990). Stated differently, praxis necessitates that

reflection is both preceded and followed by action (Rosenberger, 2001).

In a persistent theme, the pedagogy of reflection also varies widely, with rampant inconsistency

and range in descriptors relating to the integration of reflective activities into the pedagogy of service-

learning (Rogers, 2001). One of the seminal models of reflection comes from Kolb (1984). This four-step

model begins with concrete experience, followed by reflection on and about that experience, proceeded

by synthesis of newly acquired information and a movement toward abstract conceptualization,

rounded out by active engagement and experimentation again to test the new information, allowing

the cycle to begin anew. Other researchers have built upon this formula, emphasizing that it should have

no clear beginning or end point in order to be truly effective, and that deep reflection requires students

moving beyond their normal comfort zones through an adequate balance of challenge and support in

the classroom and in the community (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Rogers, 2001; Schulz, 2007). Following these

models of reflection can help students move beyond superficial discussions to a more critical analysis of

challenging situations encountered and the underlying causes. It is worth noting that this cyclical

approach also works well with various learning styles found in the classroom, as students are engaged in

hands-on learning, experiencing the context associated with content, and have room to look for the

value behind concepts and academic approaches (Cantor, 1997).

Regardless of the precise model, a variety of forms can be used to capture, assess, and make use

of reflective activities. First, Bloom (2008) reminds instructors not to assume that students know how to

approach reflection, in general, or in the specific ways the professor has in mind, for fear of gathering


nothing more than superficial narrations of lived experience. Most common techniques discussed in the

literature include journals (e.g., Bettcher, 2007) and reflective papers (e.g., Hyten & Warren, 2003). As

another method of assessment, Ward (2007) incorporated ongoing analysis of journal entries using a

standard method of evaluation during classroom sessions, looking not only for completion, but content

relating to state objectives, and attempts to integrate classroom theory to active experience. A less time

intensive approach includes spotlighting a few student journal entries for class discussion and

exploration, allowing all students to benefit from the analysis and synthesis without, perhaps,

overtaxing the abilities of a single instructor (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Journals further provide an

opportunity to students to give voice to their experiences, discontent, dilemmas, and emerging

consciousness without exposing their classmates to what may be classified as overtly prejudiced or

discriminatory content (in the form of stereotypes, misinformation, and the like), while also creating one

can be a one-on-one, dynamic dialogue between instructor and student as instructors give feedback on

entries (Rice & Pollack, 2000). Regardless of whether reflection is completed through formal papers, less

formal journal entries, or another method entirely, Ash and Clayton (2004) propose a model referred to

as Articulated Learning. This model is designed to encourage students to demonstrate learning

outcomes via reflection, rather than just report them, in an attempt to also help students uncover a

more complex picture of the issues at hand. Their approach involves three dimensions of learning

outcomes: academic, personal, and civic. Students analyze outcomes in each of these dimensions using

three basic phases: objective description of the experience, analysis of the experience, and articulation

of learning outcomes. Guiding questions such as “What did I learn?,” “How, specifically, did I learn it?,”

and “Why does this learning matter?” help students scaffold their responses as they begin to engage in

this process (Ash & Clayton, 2004, p. 142). Because of both the standardized approach and the

demonstration of learning outcomes, the authors also suggest that this technique can be valuable for

measures of accountability relating to the true outcomes of service-learning activities.


For reflection to be truly critical and in line with the tenets of critical service-learning, students’

experiences must begin to make them challenge the status quo and their previous assumptions about

how and why the world functions as it does (Rogers, 2001). This challenge makes clear the point that

reflection is a cognitive and affective pursuit, fostered by an usual or perplexing situation wherein

students must looking closely at their own beliefs and values in light of new information. Critical

reflection is what pushes students toward a transformation of perspective, wherein they must analyze

their experiences and come to new conclusions, rather than following back on prior schema to make

sense of new situations and deal with dissonance (Eyler & Giles, 1999). In order for students to have

experience upon which they can critically reflect, the nature of their service must be purposeful and

suited to these ideals. Rosenberger (2000) charged educators to “create service learning experiences

that extend beyond empathy and ‘helping others.’ Important as these are, service learning must be an

avenue of education that enlarges students’ critical consciousness and contributes to the transformation

of society. Such transformation must be toward a fuller humanity for all of us” (p. 42). To be clear,

transformation is the antithesis of transactional activities, where service or work may be completed, a

pressing need may be addressed, but little (or no) true or lasting change is expected (Enos & Morton,

2003).

One of the ultimate goals of critical service-learning, specifically, and critical pedagogy, more

generally, is to create dissonance as a means of reframing the way in which people see the world (Freire,

2006; hooks, 1994). Of note, perspective transformation may not occur during the short span of time of

one course or even within a course sequence – perspective transformation may take a lifetime. But if

the seeds are planted during a course, most would agree that a goal of critical service-learning has been

achieved, such that students have been empowered to do something relating to social change (Eyler &

Giles, 1999). By problematizing structural inequality and exposing students to alternative possibilities

using the approaches of multicultural education and social justice goals, these seeds can be nurtured


(Nagda, Gurin, & Lopez, 2003). A nonhierarchical approach to pedagogy and engaging the various

stakeholders – instructors, students, community – can work toward this end (Rosenberger, 2000). By

approaching community partnerships in a way that is strengths-based, sustainable, incremental,

strategic, enterprising, dissemination-oriented, and creative (Ersing, Jetson, Jones, & Keller, 2007),

critical service-learning can be a means of transforming both students and communities (Densmore,

2000).

These transformational experiences can ultimately eradicate the need for service in the first

place by incorporating tenets of social justice education (Boyle-Baise & Langford, 2004). As instructors of

critical service-learning strive toward the realization of such lofty aspirations, it’s of note the true

relevance of the work at hand: “Content without a transformative pedagogy may be rhetorical,

intellectualizing, and divorced from reality. An active and engaging pedagogy without a critical

knowledge base may result in temporary ‘feel good’ emotions” (Nagda, Gurin, and Lopez, 2003, p. 168).

One method of exploring and seeking to attain the tenets of social justice can come through

multicultural education as a theoretical perspective used to inform service-learning pedagogy. Within

this framework, a strand of multicultural education known as social reconstructionist multicultural

education can be employed. As O’Grady (2000) explained, this approach “teaches directly about

oppression, discrimination, social justice, and how to take action against these inequities… When

students can learn to analyze, to critically reflect on, and ultimately – if they choose to – to transform

oppressive situations through action, they are engaged in a form of political activism inherent in social

reconstructionist multicultural education” (pp. 2-6). Incorporating this perspective is challenging, as

multicultural education can carry an overtly political association, thereby making it controversial

depending on the meaning attached to it by the person doing the interpretation (Densmore, 2000). The

political natural of multiculturalism (and social justice) is but one of many in the realm of education,

making it a point of caution but not a cause for alarm or discouragement (Butin, 2006). Taken together,


the positive impact that can come from a well-orchestrated program incorporating the ideals of social

justice and multicultural education should far outweigh the negative possibilities as utilized in the

pedagogy of critical service-learning.

DESIRED AND DEMONSTRATED OUTCOMES

In one of its most encompassing forms, critical service-learning as a “scholarship of engagement

is seen to link theory and practice, cognitive and affective learning, and colleges with communities…

breach[ing] the bifurcation of lofty academics with the lived reality of everyday life to promote critical

inquiry and reflective practice across complex and contested local, national, and international issues”

(Butin, 2006, p. 474). On the path to attaining these goals, smaller, incremental outcomes can also be

documented and achieved that feed into the larger picture of transformation already discussed. As with

any the implications of any other pedagogical practice, Eyler and Giles (1999) presented this caution:

“Simply requiring service hours has a tenuous link to student outcomes, but community service that is

well integrated with an academic course of study contributes to personal and interpersonal

development, learning and application of knowledge, critical thinking ability, and perspective

transformation” (p. 182). As such, the way in which the ideals of service-learning are cared out in

practice contribute significantly in terms of demonstrated outcomes, be they related most directly to

areas of academics, personal development, or civic engagement (Astin, Vogelgesand, Ikeda, & Yee,

2000). Further, the specific goals of each program or opportunity may be different, in that some “may

have goals in the areas of leadership, ethical development, spiritual development, critical thinking,

analytical or creative writing, citizenship or civic education, social justice, or increased understanding of

human difference and commonality” (Jacoby, 2003, p. 5). Consequently, these distinctions have

implications for the ways in which outcomes are processed or evaluated. A standard method of

evaluation that should permeate all approaches, then, is through academic performance. Grade point


average, the most common indicator of academic achievement, has been evaluated to positive effects

by some researchers (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000), while many others have found no

significant changes in grades as a result of service-learning. These mixed results have led many

researchers to not doubt the validity of service-learning but, rather, to appreciate that its outcomes are

perhaps more qualitative than quantitative. The possible combinations of variables interacting in such

complex, evolving situations points to the need to take a more well-rounded approach to measuring the

outcomes of service-learning (Butin, 2006). This holistic view of academic achievement leads to the

following discussion of results and outcomes.

Nagda, Gurin, and Lopez (2003) conceptualized the idea of engaged learning, a method that

involves carrying the material of the classroom beyond the boundaries of class sessions and times,

discussing and mulling over theory and learning, to applying the content to real-life, complex, and

dynamic settings. This very process of engaged learning can be an example of increased cognitive

development and a growth in critical thinking skills, as demonstrated by other researchers (Cantor,

1999; Ward, 2007). Eyler and Giles (1999) found that students in well-developed service-learning

courses where the academic and service components were interdependent were better able to apply

information learned in the classroom to real-life settings and had more sophisticated approaches to

problem solving that incorporated community needs and made room for overcoming gaps in their

personal knowledge and experience. They further explained that students believed, irrelevant of

quantitative measures of academic achievement, they had learned more in the classroom setting,

perhaps by virtue of their ability to apply such information rather than seeing it as a series of isolated

facts and theories. Johnson and Chope’s (2007) students studying public policy were able to better

analyze sampling techniques and process descriptive data as compared to their non-service-learning

counterparts, in addition to being able to more critically analyze the implications of public policy work.

Similarly, Govekar and Rishi (2007) found that their business students who had engaged in quality


service-learning felt more comfortable deviating from planned activities and had more confidence and a

perceived increase in abilities to engage in or lead group discussions, move beyond basic answers from a

textbook, and actualize resources and contacts to complete a task if needed. Some learning outcomes

have been mixed, as Simons and Cleary (2006) showed. While their students expressed a deeper

understanding of theoretical concepts, they also reported a decreased interest in the course and its

content; whether this is a consequence of the actual service experience or some other variable entirely

is unclear.

Thinking about outcomes that play a role not only academically but in educating the student

academically and socially for success in an ever-changing, fast-paced society, innumerable personal

outcomes have been documented. As Simmons and Roberts-Weah (2000) pointed out, service-learning

“provides higher education with a unique opportunity to teach the ‘whole’ student by strategically

connecting the curricular and cocurricular aspects of student life in higher education through teaching,

research, and citizenship” (p. 205). Students have widely reported increased feelings of self-efficacy and

self-confidence, at a personal level and as it relates to their ability to make a difference in the lives of

others (Simons & Cleary, 2006; McClaim, Diambra, Burton, Fuss, & Fudge, 2008; Toews & Cerny, 2005).

Students have also reported or demonstrated an increased appreciation for diversity, increased

tolerance, along with an appreciation for other cultural frameworks and ways of seeing the world

(Bednarz et al., 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Simons & Cleary, 2006; Toews & Cerny, 2005). Heightened

interpersonal skills and other forms of social capital have also been shown to be common outcomes of

service-learning activities (Bednarz et al., 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Keen & Hall, 2009). Other

researchers have also documented students’ reports of spiritual growth in conjunction with their

increased commitment to social justice initiatives, even when it was not an explicit objective (Bernacki &

Bernt, 2007). Thinking in terms of long-term impact, many researchers have found that students made

changes in their intended career path and/or said they would be committed to continuing their


engagement in the community at the conclusion of their structured course requirements (Astin,

Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Bettcher, 2007; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Williams & Ferber, 2008).

While these student-centered outcomes are prevalent throughout the literature, less accessible

and less documented are the impacts and outcomes for members of the community. While this dearth

of information will be discussed further in the next section, there are some key findings to highlight.

Elsons, Johns, and Petrie (2007) studied the longitudinal impact of students in service-learning programs

helping preschool students in collaboration with the pre-existing Jumpstart program. While all mentors

work one-on-one with a preschool student following and during a total of 60 hours of training, those

mentors engaging in this experience in conjunction with a service-learning course achieved higher gains

with their preschooler than did mentors not enrolled in a similar course. Another example comes from

the University of Southern Florida (USF). As Ersing, Jetson, Jones, and Keller (2007) discussed, the

purposeful redesign and strategic vision to grow the research power and notoriety of USF led to a

partnership known as the East Tampa Initiative, which necessitates true collaboration with the

surrounding community and has led to valuable outcomes for all stakeholders. Through this reciprocal

partnership, community members give input on all activities, the university utilizes a strengths-based

approach in undertaking research and course design in the area, and research findings are widely

disseminated and used for positive change in the surrounding community. These two examples begin to

show just how service-learning can be “win-win-win” for students, faculty, and the community (Bednarz

et al., 2008).

For all the successes documented here, the results beg the question of what other results can

come from concerted engagement in critical service-learning activities, and how much of a lasting

impact these experiences can have. Through critical service-learning’s ultimate goal of fostering

transformational learning experiences, the intention is not only to improve and change the ways that

students learn, but to do this in cooperation and collaboration with the community, while bringing in the


skills and talents of committed members of faculty and student services (Enos & Morton, 2003).

Through this praxis, the hope is the planting and cultivation of seeds of positive social change (Dalton &

Ingram, 2004). To illustrate examples of these broader outcomes as achieved through intentional

approaches to critical service-learning, a variety of case studies follow.

University of San Francisco

Johnson and Chope (2007), professors at the University of San Francisco, instruct a course on

public policy, focusing on homelessness and incorporating a purposeful focus on service-learning. The

upper division course is for public policy majors, wherein students are assigned to work in a community

agency for a minimum of two hours per week over the course of the semester. With the explicit

objective of students understanding the human consequences of policy work, the instructors strive to

remove the otherwise neutral focus of most public policy courses. Through their work, students see the

patterns and personal implications of public policy. Of note, before students began their internship they

articulated their desired outcomes as predominantly informational (i.e., to learn the inner workings of

and daily operations of community agencies), but by the end of the semester they found themselves

more transformed by the personal connections they had made along the way than by this basic

information.

It is these personal connections and this profound change of outlook that led Johnson and

Chope (2007) to describe the course as transformational for the students. Students studying public

policy with these professors could no longer maintain the neutrality that they had largely encountered

before their internship, nor could they shake this experience as they moved forward. Unfortunately, the

analysis presented does not discuss the impact on the communities and the agencies the students

worked with, so the level of collaboration remains in question even though an element of

transformation that is invaluable to critical service-learning is exhibited.


California State University-Monterey Bay

If there is any doubt regarding the move to institutionalize service-learning as pedagogy, the

case of California State University-Monterey Bay (CSUMB) adds credence to the movement. Rice and

Pollack (2000) highlight the approach of CSUMB, a relatively-new university built on the grounds of a

former Army base, Fort Ord. Members of the surrounding community were actively consulted through

the conception of this university and the formulation of its mission, requiring that it be both accessible

and truly a part of its surroundings. The resulting curriculum requires all graduates to have completed at

least two service-learning experiences throughout their tenure at the school. The first, a required

general education seminar, creates a common experience for all students to explore elements of power,

compassion and blame, including focused study about privilege and oppression. In addition to explicitly

focusing attention on entering and exiting communities thoughtfully, students put all of this knowledge

into action by completing 30 hours of required service. Aside from this introductory experience,

students go on to complete at least one required course specific to their program of study prior to

graduation. Throughout both courses, students critically reflect on their own identities and self-

awareness while they seek to observe and describe the work they are doing in the community.

The structured and intentional approaches built into the design of these courses reflect

elements of critical service-learning pedagogy. Students are encouraged to not only understand their

own perspectives, experiences, and bias, but to look deeper at structural factors they are witnessing and

explore this exposure under the guises of compassion, responsibility, and social justice. CSUMB provides

an example of the process of institutionalizing service-learning and being collaborative with the

community, though the current research on outcomes does not directly attest to moments of

transformational learning. Future research will, perhaps, delve deeper into this aspect as the legacy of

CSUMB and its approach grows.


Bonner Scholars

Another example of service-learning comes from Bonner Scholars, a program highlighted by the

research of Keen and Hall (2009). Bonner Scholars are students selected through the college admissions

process at approximately 25 institutions each year, located predominantly at private, liberal arts schools

of higher learning in Appalachian areas. In total, 10-20 students are selected at each school annually

based in part on financial need (loosely connected to Pell Grant eligibility as determined through the

Free Application for Federal Student Aid). As a part of a financial package, students are responsible for

completing ten hours of training, community service, and reflection on a weekly basis, in addition to

opportunities to engage in more extensive service experiences during academic break periods. Students

choose their site of service and, in all, have completed over 1,500 hours of service at that site by the

time they graduate. Through their commitments, students reflect on what Keen and Hall (2009) term

otherness, which they go on to define as the lives, opportunities, culture, and experiences of those

perceived to be different from oneself. Longitudinal surveys administered to students at various touch

points throughout their commitment show increased attention to social justice issues over time, an

internalization of experiences, and appreciation for the continued support of Bonner Scholars staff

members.

This program appears to be unique as compared to some other examples available for analysis,

in that it is tied to financial aid and involves a longitudinal time commitment. Students are selected to

participate by college admissions staff members and, while they do ultimately elect to participate and

stay engaged as Bonner Scholars, there is a tangible benefit being allocated to students above and

beyond the intrinsic reward or motivation for otherwise engaging in service. Nonetheless, the

longitudinal nature of the program provides an interesting case for the role of sustained approaches to

service-learning among a cohort of students within a college or university.


Smart-Girl

Williams and Ferber (2008) present findings of a non-hierarchical mentorship program known as

Smart-Girl, wherein adolescent girls are partnered with college-age women to explore life skills,

empowerment, and developing self confidence through a feminist model. The mentors undergo 24

hours of training before working with the younger girls which, in this particular example, is incorporated

into an internship offered through a women’s studies department. Mentors also reflect and debrief as a

group following each activity with the younger girls. At the close of the program, the mentees

demonstrate growth in measures of problem solving and critical thinking, emotional intelligence,

conflict resolution, and resilience. But the experience is reciprocal and mutually reinforcing, as the

university women improve their own communication and problem-solving skills, and feel more

confident in their ability to create social change.

The measured outcomes for both mentors and mentees make the program transformative; the

younger girls leave with valuable and empowering life skills as do the mentors, many of whom continue

to work with the Smart-Girl curriculum after their commitment has ended. This transformation and

consciousness raising, the purposeful praxis of action and reflection throughout, and the approach to

addressing a genuine community need (bolstering the often fledgling self esteem of young girls), makes

the Smart-Girl curriculum a prime example of critical service-learning.

Bridge Builders Academic Mentoring Program

The Bridge Builders Academic Mentoring Program (BAMP) is a service-learning option for pre-

service teachers, housed at a Catholic, university in the northwest (Eifler, Kerssen-Griep, & Thacker,

2008). The program is a one-year partnership between secondary education majors and Bridge Builders,

an already established community organization for Black adolescent males. The education majors serve


not as tutors but as academic mentors to these young men who are frequently labeled as “at risk” – at

risk, perhaps, of dropping out of school, of being incarcerated or otherwise in trouble with the law, and

many other obstacles that may prevent them from achieving their full potential. Through BAMP, the

mentors and the Gents (as the BAMP participants are known) meet for three hours each Monday, over

dinner, focused academic study, and a more flexible “study hall” hour led by the Gents. Through online

discussion boards and group reflection sessions, “Mentors were not allowed to become mired in their

own limitations and occasional stumbles; they were expected to seek and implement effective strategies

to solve the complex educational and curricular problems they encountered, but not alone and not

without support” (Eifler, Kerssen-Griep, & Thacker, 2008, p. 65). In this novel and initially overwhelming

experience of what may be the first true relationship or exposure that these future teachers have had

with African Americans, in general, or elements of the urban lifestyle they have been raised in, the

victories and successes seem to dramatically outweigh the challenges that are overcome through this

active network of support.

The outcomes of BAMP speak for themselves: all of the Gents have graduated from high school

and 97% of them have matriculated into college. Further, all of the academic mentors have gone on to

professions in teaching, in many cases in high schools attended by the Gents they have mentored, at

which point their mentees have served a protective and socializing role for their new teachers, providing

them with invaluable social capital as they make their transition into the professional world and seek to

gain credibility with their students. These are some of the more quantifiable achievements of BAMP.

Other outcomes are, perhaps, not as easy to illustrate by way of statistics or simple words:

“As the program matures, each year a handful of Gents decide to make this small, primarily

White campus their college destination. They have found a home here and the many welcoming

gestures of support, in the form of scholarships, study, and support groups, provide ample

evidence of that. However, they and their fellow Gents have also made important contributions


to this community and know they are valued for those. For themselves, they have broadened

their original view of what life might hold for them and have taken the first important step in

achieving their dreams. Along the way, they have catalyzed others; their mentors and their

mentors’ teachers and institutions are transformed in fundamental ways. This is shown in the

teaching jobs they take, the choices they make within those classrooms, and their attitudes and

actions toward marginalized people. These instances of grace point to the power of engaging in

social justice to teach social justice.” (Eifler, Kerssen-Griep, and Thacker, 2008, p. 68)

This is the transformative nature for which service-learning practitioners strive; not only was the

experience mutually reinforcing and truly collaborative, but the outcomes live on beyond the conclusion

of the formal partnership and even past the reach of those directly engaged. As with other existing

experiences, it is not readily apparent how deeply the practitioners delved into issues of structural

inequality, but the broader community impact speaks volumes and lends itself, at least in large part, to

the goals of critical service-learning.

The Citizen Scholars Program

A final case study is that of the Citizen Scholars Program (CSP) at the University of

Massachusetts-Amherst (Mitchell, 2007). CSP is a cohort of students within the honors program who

have applied and been accepted to the four-semester learning experience. The goal of the program is to

develop in students the ability and desire to elicit positive social change through a two year engagement

in service. Students choose the agency for themselves and are provided with a solid grounding in social

justice theory and study to support their activities. As Mitchell (2007) explained of the approach,

“students must first come to believe and understand that the current community is somehow flawed.

Then, the student should seek to be aware of root causes that lead to the flaws and problems they now

recognize in the community” (p. 102). Students complete well over 200 hours of service over the course


of two years, divided into a requirement of 60 hours of service per semester, and are compensated via a

$500 scholarship each semester. Highly structured course meetings give way to student-led discussions

and research focused on experiences and challenges that arise through the community commitment.

Students reflect critically on their activities throughout, focusing on privilege and oppression, as

well as their own identity, perspectives, and responsibilities to those around them. They explore the

meaning and root causes of inequality, shatter pre-existing stereotypes, and make privilege visible while

participating in structured discussion sessions about their community engagement with classmates and

instructors. Students are also evaluated throughout their experience by their community partners. As a

culmination of knowledge gained, in the third semester, students seek community input and research

and design a capstone experience intended to elicit meaningful social change. This capstone is to be

grounded in social justice approaches, questioning unequal status and inequitable social structures.

Partnered with the short-term benefits realized through such experiences, the Citizen Scholars Program

“benefits everyone as a new generation of leaders, with visions of justice guiding their efforts, leave the

University with intent to live their social justice commitments and to work for meaningful social change”

(Mitchell, 2007, p. 110).

In each of these structured experiences, we find incidents of transformational learning and

profound outcomes. As invaluable and thrilling as each of these programs are, it must be remembered

that seemingly isolated, individual experiences also have transformational outcomes that may or may

not make their way to the literature. Such is the story of a devout young woman who volunteered with

an AIDS outreach organization as a part of one of her courses:

“Although she felt that homosexuality was sinful, she also worked closely with many gay men

and women whom she liked and respected and spent a good deal of time grappling with her

dilemma of accepting and yet not accepting homosexuality. She spent a good deal of time in her


journal and in group reflection puzzling over her contradictory feelings. For her the defining

moment came when she spent a day working alongside a man living with HIV who shared with

her his experiences in his own church. She was particularly struck by his story of rejection by a

fellow parishioner: ‘He told me that AIDS was God’s punishment for my sins but I asked him if

perhaps AIDS hadn’t been sent into the world to test his Christian compassion.’ This story

provided an insight that allowed her to restructure the way she thought about AIDS and her

own faith; suddenly there was no conflict between her own moral values and her friendship and

compassion for the people she was working with. Her new perspective on Christian compassion

had room for both.” (Eyler & Giles, 1999, p. 143)

These moments should remind all practitioners and advocates of service-learning that the impacts of

quality experiences truly do make a difference in the lives of others and, perhaps not immediately or in

an obvious way, they also are relevant as we work toward broader movements toward social change

and developing in students a passion for social justice as fostered through critical service-learning.

LIMITATIONS, OBSTACLES, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The growth and development of service-learning programs at institutions of higher learning

across the country has led to a deductive scramble to document results and outcomes, seeking to

thereby solidify the approach as a worthwhile academic endeavor for faculty, students, and

communities, alike. Perhaps despite and because of this, the path has been challenging. As Eyler and

Giles (1999) point out, “service-learning programs sprang up without the benefit of a research base or

systematic attempts at evaluation. Founded and developed by bright and passionate students,

enthusiastic faculty, and community-oriented student services staffs, these programs have flourished

but have not become well connected to the academic core of most institutions that house them” (p. 13).

Four pressing and recurrent challenges yet to be adequately resolved include the full integration of and


sensitivity to community needs and interests, keeping student needs and development at the fore of

design and implementation, the impact on faculty and instructors of service-learning activities, and the

future direction of service-learning as pedagogy throughout all areas of higher education.

Just as the principles of critical service-learning espouse a need for students to uncover the

structural roots of their proximal experiences, Roberts (2008) reminds us that, “Societal relationships

between majority and minority groups are necessarily mirrored in the dynamic between students and

community partners” (p. 104), necessitating an open and honest acknowledgement of this occurrence

and a way to move beyond such perpetuation of inequality. In a colloquial articulation of this, Horton

(1990) explained that “even somebody who does try to identify with poor people by dressing poor can

still go back home or use a credit card. There’s always an escape .That’s perceived by poor people as

being a lark. Whether they’re doing it for the experience or from guilt, it’s always slightly artificial” (p.

197). One way to strive to avoid such a touristic model of service-learning is to ensure accountability to

community members throughout the process (Engstrom, 2003). In high-trust, high-responsibility

partnerships, true collaboration can be found that serves the purposes of eliciting social change that is

transformational for all stakeholders, not just for students. Without these intentions, the one-sided

relationship that benefits students and leaves communities the same as they were – or perhaps worse –

will be counterproductive to the objectives of critical service-learning (Langseth, 2000).

One of the first challenges to overcome to orchestrate truly reciprocal, collaborative service-

learning is to openly acknowledge, address, and seek to rectify what may be a community’s negative

perceptions of the university. In the case of urban institutions, negative perceptions may be the result of

“gentrification” initiatives being undertaken that oust long-time residents to make way for university

growth (Enos & Morton, 2003; Jones, 2003), or even the consequence of even more daunting

relationships wherein the university uses the community for the purposes of research, expansion, or

development without giving anything in return (Langseth, 2000). Jones (2003) and Mitchell (2007) have


pointed out that an imbalance of power can be at the root of such dysfunctional relationships, and that

critical service-learning pedagogy “seeks to challenge the imbalance and redistribute power through the

ways that service-learning experiences are both planned and implemented” (p. 103). As such, a starting

point would be realizing that communities are under no obligation to be subjected to or appreciative of

offers of service as they relate to the advancement of campus agendas (Roberts, 2008). A true goal

should be one of reaching a trusting, responsible, and respectful relationship wherein the boundaries

between campus and community are blurred because objectives of all of the stakeholders are one and

the same (Jones, 2003). Such a high-trust relationship not only enables mutual understanding and

shared interests, but allows for partnerships to persist and flourish through obstacles, difficulties, or

changes in leadership (Enos & Morton, 2003).

The need to become increasingly community-centered by no means negates the urgency of

remaining student-centered. While the outcomes already documented show significant gains have been

made, there are still innumerable pitfalls to avoid and areas in need of improvement as service-learning

grows. First, the point cannot be overemphasized that academic content and service experience must be

truly and deeply intertwined to add the most value to the curriculum; research has shown that making

service an optional component of a course, not fully reflecting upon or discussing the service experience

in the classroom, or allowing students to enter haphazardly into an activity may and certainly can add

value, overall, but will not be at an optimal level (Eyler & Giles, 1999). If we accept that the service or

engagement experience is required, then, we must go on to acknowledge a variety of obstacles that may

appear as a result. First, the very notion of requiring students to volunteer, can be a contradiction of

terms with counterproductive results, subject to challenge by students. Ward (2007) shared a challenge

that occurred in her women’s studies courses, wherein the young women questioned the role of

volunteerism as counter to feminine empowerment and emancipation as it exploited their labor; turning

this argument on its side (indeed, by reflecting critically) Ward worked with students to reframe their


perceptions of community service, embracing it as a means to be proactive in a community and address

the needs of others while learning about oneself. While this critical analysis quelled the concerns of

Ward’s students, circumventing other such obstacles certainly requires an upfront articulation of

expectations and commitments so that students are able to make an informed decision as they enroll in

a course or course sequence.

Once students endeavor to commit to such activities, the probability of encountering

unexpected barriers – whether they are in the community or specific to the student’s life – is strong and

must be planned for as much as possible. First, “There may be some tension between doing what is

needed in the community and doing intellectually stimulating work; when students are not actively

engaged in partnership in developing a project, they may feel less engaged in work identified by the

community while acknowledging that it is work that the community needs to get done” (Eyler and Giles,

1999, p. 72). Further, availability of time, level of motivation, and degree of engagement can vary over

time. One consequence of framing service-learning as “easy” as a recruitment strategy for students

could have undue consequences in the community if students want to drop the course or discontinue

their service mid-experience due to unexpected time constraints or concerns (St. Clair and Tschirhart,

2007, p. 50). One professor, in particular, addressed this challenge by requiring her students to sign a

contract vowing their commitment and respect to the course, its content, and all community members

(Kouri, 2007). Of course, the social and personal aspects involved in higher education necessitate some

flexibility in policies and scheduling, no matter how good intentions are in defining restrictions and

constructing contracts. As articuled by Téllez (2007), a professor at a large, urban research university,

states, “I have been told by several students that in order to complete the service learning project, they

would have to quit their jobs, sometimes putting the family’s finances seriously at risk. The students

who face such difficulties nearly always see the value in service learning and are willing to work hard for


their classes, but many did not plan for extra hours outside of class” (p. 79). Bettcher (2007) addressed

similar concerns about opportunity costs to students.

Continuing to respect the needs and interests of members of the community while

simultaneously fostering student growth and development must be an ongoing task throughout the

service-learning experience. Students must be aware of the situations they are entering, including being

provided with enough background information to not only enter and exit a community with as much

grace and lack of disruption as possible (Break Away, 2009). They must also have a thorough working of

oppression and structural inequality before and during their experience, as a lack of this knowledge can

inadvertently reinforce oppressive outcomes (O’Grady, 2000). Recognizing these underpinnings is

important and should be fostered alongside an emphasis on a sense of respect and humility as students

enter a community that is probably not their own. This includes not jumping to conclusions about

observed behavior, maintaining respect and courtesy even in moments of disagreement, and striving to

learn from members of the community through an asset-based approach at all times (Noddings, 2006;

Téllez, 2000). For all of these precautions and urgings already acknowledged, there will also be novel

circumstances and individual needs and requests that arise as students engage in critical service-

learning. The dialogical nature of this pedagogy requires that faculty and instructors not only be open

and willing to explore this possibility, but that they also instill this openness in their students so that

they feel comfortable enough to voice dissent, question what is happening, and authentically share their

thoughts and perceptions – be they positive, negative, or indifferent. Eyler and Giles (1999) explained

that “if our enthusiasm discourages students from sharing their honest observations, then we block

critical analysis and prevent growth… When the instructor acknowledges from the beginning that

community service is difficult and may bring the student into situations that are uncomfortable and

challenging, students may feel freer to express their disappointments or concerns in ways that are

productive” (pp. 201-202). In this approach, students can begin to understand and appreciation the


intrinsic complexity associated with working in real-life situations and contexts (Cantor, 1997; Ward,

2007.

An important undertaking is fostering a strong community in the classroom early on in the

encounter, which can help diffuse challenging situations as engagement progresses (hooks, 1994).

Engstrom (2003) and Young, Shinnah, Ackerman, Carruthers, and Young (2007) also stress the need to

engage not only faculty members but student affairs professionals as practitioners of service learning

address the academic, social, personal, and civic needs of students. The full support and engagement of

the lead instructor must also remain strong and influential throughout the experience. In particular,

faculty members who do not engage in community activities required of their students run the risk of

encountering resentment by students, some of whom may see a service requirement as a lack of

teaching on the part of the instructor (Betther, 2007; Téllez, 2003). As a consequence of this time

commitment and need for active involvement, a consistent concern is that engaging in such activities

takes time away from that which tenure-track professors may need to use to conduct research and

other scholarly activities leading to tenure, ultimately harming their career advancement Bednarz et al.,

2008; Colby et al., 2000).

In response to these and other concerns, there is a growing scholarship of engagement intended

to shed light on the intense and worthwhile work of service learning (Boyle-Baise & Langford, 2004).

Professors are further encouraged to share their work with departmental chairs, deans, and provosts as

institutions are increasingly under pressure to link with their surrounding communities through

concerted efforts leading to tangible outcomes, all of which may in turn feed into institutional buy-in

and credibility for the discipline (Ward, 2007; Young et al., 2007). Similarly, Hollander and Hartley (2003)

suggest that the future of service-learning as an institutionalized approach within higher education rests

on practitioners’ abilities to link service-learning with the broader, growing agenda of civic engagement

and renewal. Embracing this framework can not only help ease the concerns of professors interested in


engaging in the activity by demonstrating that the goal is to work with and develop communities, rather

than just engage in charitable activities, but it simultaneously gives service-learning relevancy at a higher

level in postsecondary education, arguably embracing both the civic renewal agenda and objectives of

multicultural education (O’Grady, 2000).

These many challenges should point to opportunities for growth within the realm of service-

learning. Much of student services and other aspects of higher education are inherently dynamic as we

work with changing and evolving student populations, suggesting that pedagogy must also maintain

such an evolutionary approach. In this evolutionary trajectory, many observations have been made.

First, to make such investments of time and energy worthwhile, to develop solid collaborations and

partnerships in the community, more time is needed than the traditional semester-length course that

only serves to skim the surface of such issues, while failing to get closer to the transformational goal of

service-learning. As Keen and Hall (2009) wrote, “Our data support the idea that dialogue demands

more than ‘interaction’; one-semester courses may be too short for students to appreciate dialogue

across difference, which also makes it more difficult to meet the needs of the community… students

need sustained and reflective dialogue across boundaries of perceived difference to effectively engage

with the intellectual, moral, and spiritual challenges such engagement can create” (p. 71). Are the

outcomes of such superficial experiences temporary or even counterproductive to the lofty goals that

service-learning hopes to achieve? If we acknowledge this limitation and begin to think critically about

ways to address it, exploration of longer-term commitments must be given thorough consideration.

Even with this shift in timing and structure, Butin (2006) has gone on record to say that in order

for service-learning to be institutionalized and continue to grow and flourish on college campuses across

the country, it must be re-envisioned. As a starting point, service-learning has to this point been

advanced as a politics to transform higher education, but this logic is fundamentally flawed. Even though

service-learning has garnered bipartisan support in recent years (Hollander & Hartley, 2003), it advances


an essentially liberal and progressive agenda subject to critique by conservative ideologues (Butin,

2006). According to Butin (2006): “Service-learning is in a double-bind. If it attempts to be a truly radical

and transformative (liberal) practice, it faces potential censure and sanction. If it attempts to be

politically balanced to avoid such an attack, it risks losing any power to make a difference” (pp. 485-

486). In its intentions to move students from orientations of individual charity to addressing social

justice by way of structural and social change, Butin (2006) and Eyler and Giles (1999) both advanced a

convincing argument that it runs the spectrum of idiomatic understandings of the differences between

Republic and Democratic political orientations. Left unresolved, this political limitation will hamper the

advancement and institutionalization of service-learning as pedagogy and in practice.

How does service-learning and, more specifically, critical service-learning, overcome such an

inherent challenge in structure? Butin (2006) suggested that the future of service-learning rests on

reframing itself not as a method of transforming the institution of higher education but, instead, on

transforming itself into an academic discipline subject to scholarly debate, questioning, and

modification. This shift in focus to, for example, a discipline of community studies, allows the

community to be the mode of inquiry rather than a passive player in the realization of service-learning

and eradicates some (though certainly not all) of the political pressures weighing on service-learning as

it currently exists. As others have stated, “Service-learning too often falls short of the transformational

ideal and instead stagnates on the board of ‘doing nice things’ to help ‘those people’ on ‘those issues’”

(Simmons & Roberts-Weah, 2000, p. 199). Though this reframing would lead to small, incremental steps

in the overall picture, Butin (2006) posited that it is this slow and steady progress that will ultimately

lead to widespread realization of transformational change in students, on university campuses, and in

communities. It is with that orientation in mind that the project move to a vision of one approach to

critical service-learning, advanced as Community Leadership.


COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP

“You have to start where people are, because their growth is going to be from there, not from some

abstraction or where you are or someone else is.” (Horton, Kohl, & Kohl, 1990, p. 131)

The simple yet profound words of Myles Horton serve as a reminder that no element of

academia should be so far removed from the reach of its students, instructors, or community as to be

ineffectual. In what follows, the intention is not to formulate a static plan for implementation but to

instead build the foundation for a dynamic, living outline of pedagogy and course content designed to

continue the dialogue of reframing critical service-learning. This method most closely aligns with the

proposal of an action research project with the specific direction and outcomes to be determined as the

process evolves (Boyle-Baise et al., 2003). As already discussed, existing literature has pointed to the

need for service-learning to not only be re-envisioned to be continued and legitimized in higher

education but to do so through a different lens, full of altered approaches and somewhat different

foundations. In response to these urgings and an inherently felt need on behalf of the author, the focus

of this project shifts to the description of a proposed course sequence that grows out of and in response

to the existing practices and the ever-growing recommendations to solidify and further propel service-

learning into an entrenched place in higher education. Just as life is persistently changing, communities

are continually evolving, and the role of higher education progresses in response to these needs, so is

the intention of the Community Leadership course sequence. Bednarz et al. (2008) believe “the purpose

of community engagement is dependent on several factors: (1) university context, (2) student group

involved, (3) community group involved, and (4) desired learning outcomes” (p. 91). Using these four

factors as a way to begin the discussion, the vision proposed here for the future of critical service-


learning at the University of Cincinnati involves a course sequence designed not around a particular

discipline, but around the underlying principles of critical service-learning and social justice goals.

Hailed as a new, urban research university, the University of Cincinnati is located in Cincinnati,

Ohio, a city of over 300,000 residents housed within a larger metropolitan area of over two million

people. UC has a long-established role in the implementation of experiential education as an option or

requirement of many of its degree programs. As the founding institution of cooperative education in

1906, its legacy to the goals and relevance of such approaches is deeply entrenched in the university’s

existing structure and current mission statement (University of Cincinnati, 2009). As Colby et al. (2000)

noted, major research universities are the least likely to have comprehensive models of service-learning

but may instead have targeted opportunities that reach a segment of their populations; this trend holds

true for the University of Cincinnati. A key segment of the student population widely exposed to

experiential learning opportunities is the community of students in the University Honors Program. Per

their website, “The University Honors Program comprises the top 7% of University of Cincinnati students

and offers an engaging environment in which students are inspired to learn more, do more, and be

more. Students are challenged through honors seminars and experiential learning projects that focus

on: community engagement, global studies, leadership, research and creative arts” (University Honors

Program, 2009). Students in the University Honors Program are not only academically-talented, but have

a track record of intense and significant engagement in activities and service at the high school level, in

addition to representing a cross-section of the university’s colleges and programs of study. Through a

combination of curricular and co-curricular opportunities, University Honors students are challenged to

use their talents not only for their own benefit and continued success, but to think critically about how

to outwardly apply their skills and abilities.

Honors Seminars are interdisciplinary and innovative courses available each year, chosen based

on proposals submitted by interested faculty members from across the university (to see a sample call


for proposals, refer to Appendix A). A successful seminar is student-centered and intended to be

accessible to students from all disciplines, designed to incorporate diverse perspectives and theoretical

backgrounds, and is expected to include at least some element of experiential learning. The model of

community leadership proposed here is intended to translate into a proposal for an innovative course

sequence by the same name, designed to expose sophomores and juniors within the University Honors

Program to a long-term, transformational approach to critical service-learning that transcends

disciplinary boundaries. The student population is purposefully limited to sophomores and juniors in

University Honors for myriad reasons. Relating to the limitation by year in school, this is designed to

recognize that first year students may need time to acclimate to the university itself and their program

of study before undertaking such endeavors, while seniors may find it increasingly difficult to integrate

such a committed experience into their remaining tenure as undergraduates. The population of students

in the University Honors Program is ideal for such an undertaking for a variety of reasons: it presents an

existing and accessible cohort of students within a large student body; the fact that Community

Leadership, as a sequence, directly aligns to two thematic areas of the program (leadership and

community engagement); and the author’s pre-existing relationship with the program and its students.

To briefly digress, by intending to work with students who could be thought of as the upper

echelon of the University of Cincinnati’s undergraduate population, a selection bias and limitation must

be acknowledged. Butin (2006) has already indicated that “there is a distinct possibility that service-

learning may ultimately come to be viewed as the ‘Whitest of the White’ enclave of postsecondary

education… service-learning may come to signify a luxury available only to the privileged few” (p. 482).

While the student body of the University Honors Program certainly is fairly homogeneous in some

regards, students nonetheless represent a vast array of life experiences, backgrounds, and educational

and personal goals, combined with an inquisitive nature and a disposition toward critical thinking skills

that can make such a pursuit a highly worthwhile endeavor. For these reasons and more, the author


stands by the decision to attempt to pilot Community Leadership within the University Honors Program,

while leaving open the possibility of expansion to other sectors of the University of Cincinnati’s student

population at a future time.

Having highlighted the university context, including a brief discussion of the community (to be

expanded below), and the student population, it is time to move to a discussion of desired learning

objectives and outcomes and more detail about what, exactly, Community Leadership as a course

sequence would entail. The sequence would be removed from any one disciplinary boundary, embracing

perspectives garnered from fields as wide-ranging as African-American studies, anthropology,

communication, education, history, political science, public policy, psychology, social work, sociology,

urban planning and studies, and women’s studies. In short form, the goal is to recruit a cohort of

approximately 15-20 students from the University Honors Program who commit to the sequence for a

full academic year, spanning autumn to spring quarters. In the first quarter, students would explore

elements of identity and community, while gaining exposure to Cincinnati through guest presentations

and class sessions held at various locations. During the second quarter, students would be immersed in

their self-selected agency, collaborating with stakeholders there to work toward goals that fulfill a

genuine need, while using class sessions to explore structural inequality and leadership theory. The third

quarter would be a continuation of involvement in the community agency, and become increasingly

student-led as sessions move toward students determining the overall direction of discussions,

conducting independent research, and exploring ways in which social justice can be incorporated and

embraced as they look commit to action now and in the future. Ultimately, the true litmus test to gauge

the success of this course sequence in achieving its goals would be what students do at the conclusion of

the formal course structure. Was the course content transformative enough for students to refuse to be

idle over their summer break period or beyond? Will they pursue their community partnerships, outside

of the formal period of engagement? Further, will they [continue to] critically examine their own life and


goals, their impact on society, their elements of privilege, and commit themselves to positive social

change?

One of the foundational aspects of the courses would be problem-posing (Renner, 2009). As

explained by Rosenberger (2000), “Problem-posing is the process of unveiling and problematizing reality

for the purpose of searching for more humane and just ways of living. Problem-posing breaks open the

mental constructs we bring to a service learning situation and allows us to see what we previously had

not seen. We develop new consciousness and imagine new possibilities for action and reflection” (p. 41).

Reflection would be integrated throughout the experience to help students deconstruct and analyze

their activities. In addition, a nonhierarchical and supportive model of discussion and collaboration in

the classroom setting would be embraced. By purposefully putting students into situations that

challenge their assumptions and preconceived notions about self and community, the courses would be

intended to foster critical thinking skills and, hopefully, a desire to elicit positive social change as a

consequence of both their actions and reflections (Rogers, 2001).

This intentional goal of striving for transformational learning outcomes is lofty, especially given

the fact that such experiences can take a lifetime to grow and develop. Nonetheless, with the focus on

transformation, even if the goal is not realized over the duration of the course sequence, at the very

least the hope is that the seeds will be planted for student and community transformation, over the long

term, and tangible outcomes will be observed in the short-term (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Before turning to a

more detailed description of each course (a summary of which can be found in Appendix B), the words

of Horton again ring true in thinking about this vision of transformation: “*Y+ou have to have a goal. That

goal shouldn’t be one that inhibits the people you’re working with, but it should be beyond the goal you

expect them to strive for. If your goal isn’t way out there somewhere and isn’t challenging and daring

enough, then it is going to get in your way and it will also stand in the way of other people” (Horton,

Kohl, & Kohl, 1990, p. 108).


Community Leadership I: Identity and Community Awareness

In this introductory course, students would begin to critically explore their own identities and

develop community awareness in the context of both the University of Cincinnati and the city of

Cincinnati (Langseth, 2000). The traditionally-scheduled course would ideally meet once per week for an

extended period of time. Rather than holding class sessions in a conventional setting, one of the means

of cultivating awareness of the community would be meeting in different locations each week – on

campus at the Center for Community Engagement, Office of Ethnic Programs and Services, or Women’s

Center, for example, and off campus at places such as Hughes High School, a branch of the Cincinnati

Public Library, or the Corryville Recreation Center – to truly take learning into the community (Renner,

2009). Partnered with these changes in venue, students would have the opportunity to hear from

various guest speakers on aspects of Cincinnati’s history; its current challenges and promising aspects

for the future; the University’s evolution and role as, in some ways, a microcosm of the larger

community (Enos & Morton, 2003); and other elements of the area’s social fabric (Colby, Ehrick,

Beaumont, Rosner, & Stephens, 2000). In addition to the sheer informational value of these

opportunities, guest presentations would contribute to “breaking down the model of professor as chief

information source” (Bettcher, 2007, p. 16). A reflective activity at the beginning of the quarter could

ask students to articulate their perceptions of Cincinnati: what they see, what their preconceived

notions about the city were when they enrolled at UC, what frustrates them and what they are curious

about. Revisiting this activity closer to the end of the quarter, following the experiences exploring and

learning about the community, would be a means of allowing students to see how their ideas change (or

perhaps stay the same).

In addition to building outward-oriented community awareness, it is imperative to build

community in the classroom and help students explore their own identities in a safe, supportive


environment to stay true to the principles of critical service-learning. As Boyle-Baise and Langford (2004)

found in their own experiences, “Negative perceptions stymied students’ ability to learn from and with

each other,” suggesting that “community building activities are needed for students, in the field as well

as in the seminar, to shake our perceptions of motivational differences and to affirm cultural and social

diversity” (p. 63). Another key objective of the first quarter would be forming community within the

classroom where everyone feels a responsibility to contribute (hooks, 1994; Noddings, 2006). This would

help students feel challenged but supported as they engage in the complex settings and circumstances

they are sure to find through their community engagement with local agencies: as they make mistakes,

have difficult discussions, and remain open to the possibility of new ideas and receptive to the common

experiences of others (Mitchell, 2007). Further, as Bettcher (2007) articulated, “our own sense of self

(self-conception) may blind us to some of our actions, to their meanings, to their effects upon others.

This is especially important because insofar as our own identities involve a larger picture of the world

and how we fit into it, they also include a conception of other people and our relations to them” (p. 14).

Helping students achieve this awareness through a purposeful exploration of the intersections of their

own identities during the first quarter will give them a foundation upon which to build throughout the

course sequence and beyond (Rice & Pollack, 2000).

Formal placements and service activities would not actually begin during this quarter, for a

variety of reasons. First, much research has pointed to the need for students to self-select their

placements based on areas of interest, availability, and passions about making a change. In addition to

the pragmatic outcomes of such an approach, it is student-centered, affording to students ownership

and control over their own learning, while increasing the likelihood of full investment in their placement

and the overall outcomes (Bloom, 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Rosenberger, 2000). Further, other

researchers have shown that identifying an agency to collaborate with can be a time-intensive initiative

that ultimately does not lead to the most fruitful outcomes over the span of one short quarter or

Community Leadership

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (18)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (7)

Ähnlich wie Community Leadership

Ähnlich wie Community Leadership (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Community Leadership