Showing papers in "Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning in 2006"

Different Worlds and Common Ground: Community Partner Perspectives on Campus-Community Partnerships.

Abstract: This qualitative study includes focus group research involving 99 experienced community partners across eight California communities using community-based research techniques to capture community voices about their service-learning partnerships with different colleges and universities. Partners commented on their perspectives regarding motivations, benefits to the academic institution and to their own organization, impacts on student learning, and areas for improving partnerships. The analysis affirms the characteristics of effective partnerships of multiple well-established models of effective partnerships developed by higher education, but reveal that community partners have a specific sense of prioritization among partnership factors. In addition, partners revealed a surprising depth of understanding and commitment to student learning, the "common ground" of the service-learning experience. Community partners also voiced challenges and recommendations for their higher education partners to transform service-learning partnership relationships to bridge their "different worlds," and enhance learning, reciprocity, and sustainability. ********** I think a great partnership is when you stop saying MY students. They're OUR students. What are OUR needs? We share these things in common, so let's go for it. --Community Partner Yes, [the community-campus partnership] is about organizations, it's about students, but it is about common values that are much deeper. What we're learning to do, whether we're students or whether we're a non-profit, is doing something that is actually moving us as a community, a path of achieving process along the context of what we care about. --Community Partner What would we hear if we listened to community partners about their experiences in partnering with academic institutions? We know that engaging in relationships with members from local communities is central to the higher education agenda (Maurasse, 2001) and many scholars (e.g., Benson & Harkavy, 2000; Boyer, 1990; Bringle, 1999; Enos & Morton, 2003) advocate for community-campus partnerships to become a more intentional component of actualizing the service mission of higher education. In particular, community-campus partnerships have become recognized as linked to service-learning initiatives for providing the service-learning experience for students and evaluating its impact (Bailis, 2002; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Dorado G Gelmon et al., 1998; Jacoby, 2003; Jones, 2003). In the absence of community-campus partnerships, it is difficult to imagine how service-learning might even exist. The sustainability of community partnerships with higher education institutions requires attention to their motivations and perceptions of the benefits of the partners from their own perspective, however. While reciprocity of benefits for the community has long been an intended hallmark of service-learning practice (Ferrari & Chapman, 1999; Honnet & Poulsen; 1989; Keith, 1998; Sigmon, 1979; Waterman, 1997), service-learning practitioners often do not often know if, when, and how this is achieved. To date, there are few published studies documenting the perspectives of community members in partnership with universities, and the field acknowledges that this area continues to be under-represented in the overall service-learning literature (Birdsall, 2005; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Bushouse, 2005; Edwards & Marullo, 2000; Ferrari & Worrall, 2000; Giles & Cruz, 2000; Jones, 2003; Liederman et al., 2003; Sandy, 2005; Vernon & Ward, 1999; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). The growing number of academics and practitioners who voice concern about the absence of the community perspective in the literature may be indicative of a growing openness to learn more about the perspectives of community members and a willingness to transform our practice in light of their input. …

Emotion and Learning: Feeling our Way Toward a New Theory of Reflection in Service-Learning

Abstract: Service-learning researchers and practitioners agree that reflection is the essential link between community experience and academic learning: "reflection is the hyphen in service-learning" (Eyler, 2001, p. 35). The theoretical and pedagogical foundations for service-learning reflection pay scant attention to the emotional content and context of student service experience or to the positive role emotion may play in helping students connect experience with academic study. This neglect needs to end. Recent research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience reveals emotion's central role throughout the thinking and learning process. We explore how inattention to emotion has molded service-learning research and practice, and then suggest ways to reorient an approach to reflection to acknowledge the continuous interplay between the intellectual and the emotional throughout the reflective learning process. ********** "I think therefore I am." Rene Descartes (1596-1650) "The advantage of emotions is that they lead us astray." Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Giles and Eyler (1994), Furco (1996), Hatcher and Bringle (1997), and others trace the theoretical roots of service-learning from John Dewey's educational and social philosophy to David Kolb's conceptions of experiential education. Dewey and Kolb embrace a holistic view of learning as a life-long "process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience" (Kolb, 1984, p. 38). They further recognize that not all experiences are "genuinely or equally educative" (Dewey, 1938, p. 25). Instead, reflection acts as a bridge between conceptual understandings and concrete experiences. Service-learning proponents share this view, and research demonstrates that reflection is one of the core program characteristics necessary to effective practice in service-learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Eyler, Giles, & Schmiede, 1996; Hatcher & Bringle; Jacoby & Associates, 1996). Hatcher, Bringle, and Muthiah recently (2004) summarized the consensus among service-learning scholars: When reflection activities engage the learner in examining and analyzing the relationship between relevant, meaningful service and the interpretive template of a discipline, there is enormous potential for learning to broaden and deepen along academic, social, moral, personal, and civic dimensions. (p. 39) Reflection and Learning Dewey's central pillars of reflective thought and reflective activities serve as the foundation for contemporary service-learning practice, although the concept of service-learning had not been articulated when he wrote his philosophy of education. According to Giles and Eyler (1994), Dewey's explorations of "experience, inquiry, and reflection [are] the key elements of a theory of knowing in service-learning" (p. 79). In Dewey's scheme, reflection is a necessary connection between experience and theory. Experience alone does not produce learning; instead, as Bringle and Hatcher (1999) explain, "Experience becomes educative when critical reflective thought creates new meaning and leads to growth and the ability to take informed actions" (p. 180). Dewey posits that learners continuously construct new meanings based on experience and analysis, moving from action to reflection to new action. Dewey's influence is apparent in standard definitions of reflection in the service-learning literature; for example: * Reflection is the "intentional consideration of an experience in light of particular learning objectives" (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997, p. 153). * Reflection "is the process that helps students connect what they observe and experience in the community with their academic study" (Eyler, 2001, p. 35). * Reflection is "the ability to step back and ponder one's own experience, to abstract from it some meaning or knowledge relevant to other experiences" (Hutchings & Wutzorff, 1988, p. …

Analyzing Morton's Typology of Service Paradigms and Integrity.

Abstract: Research on college students found limited support for Morton's (1995) hypothesis that students have a preference for one distinct type of service orientation (i.e., charity, project, social change). The findings did replicate previous findings that college students prefer the charity paradigm. A measure of integrity was developed and two dimensions were identified that possessed distinct correlates. As Morton predicted, as the degree of integrity increased the preference for a distinct type of service became blurred, suggesting that developing integrity should be an intentional educational goal and it might be aided by exposing students to all three approaches to community service. Implications for service-learning educators are discussed. ********** As a long-time educator and leader in service-learning, Keith Morton (1995) has provided an analysis of different ways in which college students prefer to engage in community service. He describes three service paradigms: charity (providing direct service to another person), project (implementing or participating in service programs through community service organizations), and social change (transformational models of systemic change). Morton also posits that college students who are active in community service have a preference for a particular type of service with which they are most comfortable. He provides critical commentary on the strengths and limitations of each type of service with accompanying analysis of implications for the design of educational programs. Furthermore, he contends that, unlike other analyses (e.g., Delve, Mintz, & Stewart, 1990; Elden & Chisholm, 1993; Illich, 1968; Lackey, Burke, & Peterson, 1987), these three types of service do not necessarily constitute a continuum of service (pp. 1920). Rather, Morton presents the case that each type of service is a separate paradigm and each has "its own logic, strengths, limitations and vision of a transformed world" (p. 19), and contains "a world view, a problem statement, and an agenda for change" (p. 24). Therefore, it may not be reasonable for educators to have a developmental goal of challenging college students to move from acts of charity to planned projects toward social change. Furthermore, Morton (1995) contends that how a college student engages in any one of the three types of community service can have differing levels of integrity or depth. To discuss integrity, he adapts the language of anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) and describes the conditions when integrity ranges from "thin" to "thick" (p. 21). Community service directed at charity, project, and social change lacks integrity, or is thin, when it is paternalistic, self-centered, produces negative consequences, creates dependencies and false expectations, and leaves others tired and cynical (p. 28). In contrast, high levels of integrity, across the three types of service, possess, deeply held, internally coherent values; match means and ends; describe a primary way of interpreting and relating to the world; offer a way of defining problems and solutions; and suggest a vision of what a transformed world might look like. (p. 28) This level of integrity is described as "thick" because of the depth of integration between values and action. Limited research has been conducted to evaluate Morton's (1995) typology of service preference and its implications for structuring service-learning courses and other educational programs. Morton (1995) and Bringle, Magjuka, Hatcher, MacIntosh, and Jones (2006) used a forced-choice procedure in which college students were asked to choose one of the three types of service for their current activities, "over the course of my life," and what others should do. Morton found charity to be the preferred paradigm when asked about current activities, but project was the modal choice for "over the course of my life" (p. …

Community Agency Voice and Benefit in Service-Learning

Abstract: Supervisors from 40 community agencies working with a university-based service-learning program were interviewed regarding the extent of their input in service-learning program planning and implementation (Agency Voice), Interpersonal Relations with service-learning students, Perceived Benefit of the servicelearning program to the agency, and their Perceptions of the University. Issues of diversity in the context of service-learning were considered. Support was found for two hypotheses: First, agency members’ indicating more voice in program planning saw more benefits to their agency from taking part in the servicelearning program. Secondly, the perception of benefits predicted agency members’ positive perceptions of the university as a whole. Representatives of agencies with a longer history of participation in the service-learning program and from agencies involving larger numbers of service-learning students were more positive about some aspects of the relationship.

Service-Learning in Nonprofit Organizations: Motivations, Expectations, and Outcomes.

Abstract: This article applies theories of giving from philanthropic studies to enhance understanding of servicelearning relationships between students and community partners. Focusing on the participation motivations, outcome expectations, and satisfaction levels of community partners who have recently completed work with service-learning students, the authors find that organizations and staff supervisors engaged in service-learning are motivated both by altruistic and self-serving factors. Staff supervisors and community partner organizations are motivated to give time, training, and a laboratory to enhance student learning. In return, community partners expect and generally receive valuable service from the students. The results suggest that the service-learning relationship be viewed as reciprocal in nature, as with other donor-recipient situations. ********** Service-learning, a form of experiential learning in which classroom instruction is reinforced by community service (Hunter & Brisbin, 2000), is now a common and well accepted curricular component at many universities (Eyler & Giles, 1999). The service-learning literature has clearly demonstrated the benefits to students in two areas: their education is enhanced and they are more likely to be engaged citizens throughout adulthood. The benefits accruing to students from service-learning include improving critical thinking skills, integrating theory and practice, improving communication skills, and creating sustained civic engagement (Battistoni, 1997; Gray, Ondaatje, Fricker, & Geschwind, 2000; Hunter & Brisbin, 2000; Jacoby, 1996). Although service-learning literature is replete with information on the learning benefits that accrue to service-learning students (e.g., Astin & Sax, 1998; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kenny, 2002), it is relatively bereft of information on the actual, rather than implied, service benefits to the community (Eyler, Giles, & Gray, 1999; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 1997). The overall impression given by the service-learning literature is that the value of service to the community is more or less assumed. As long as the program is well-designed, the value of the service is somehow assured. The definitions of the "service" that occurs in service-learning relate most often to the creation of improved citizens, thus accruing benefits both to the students and society (Kenny). Research demonstrates that those who contribute to society as college students will build social capital--they make more informed voters, better parents, and more likely volunteers as adults (Eyler & Giles, 1999). As important as these benefits are, they are still focused on students as the service recipients, rather then the community partner organizations. Eyler and Giles' Where's the Learning in Service-Learning? (1999) led us to wonder, quixotically, Where's the service in service-learning? More to the point, to whom is the service being provided? Admittedly, more attention has been paid in recent years to the community partner's perspective. Ferrari and Worrall (2000) offer a program evaluation from the perspective of staff at urban-based community partners, assessing student performance using qualitative and quantitative items. The organization's perception of students, faculty, and community impacts of the service-learning experience are also highlighted in other recent studies (Schmidt & Robby, 2002; Vernon & Ward, 1999). While these studies help shed light on the community partner perspective, more research is needed. Our personal experiences call into question the assumed direction and value of the service in service-learning, and suggest that the service component is complex. Studies assessing the impact of service-learning must go further to understand the reciprocal nature of the "service" in service-learning. It was not too long ago, that we, now assistant professors, were staff members of nonprofit organizations and fielding proposals from professors and students to establish some sort of experiential/ service-learning arrangement. …

Assessing Learning in Community Service Learning: A Social Approach

Abstract: This essay advances a way of thinking about assessment that envelops both process and outcome. We assert that learning in community service learning and the assessment thereof might fruitfully be considered in communication with others (the students, constituents from the community, instructors, etc.). Concepts central to a social approach to learning are identified, and examples of ways to assess those concepts are advanced. Finally, methods of assessing the social dimension of learning are provided, including interviews and focus groups, the analysis of journal assignments, and the observation of videotaped interactions. ********** Community Service Learning (CSL) pedagogy, programs, and research by their very nature promote the idea of academic-community intervention--an interruption in the way things are that produces some sort of change for social betterment. How to assess both the quality and quantity of change, for whom and for what purposes, remains a central focus of CSL scholarship (see, for example, Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Lee, 2000; Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996; Levin, 2000). In an essay that advances a theoretical and practical framework for conceptualizing the design of CSL research, Astin (2000) uses Wilber's (1995, 1998) four-quadrant model to distinguish the individual and collective as well as the interior and exterior dimensions of social life in terms of individual consciousness, individual actions, institutional culture, and institutional structures. Based on the four quadrants, among the fundamental principles of outcome assessment in CSL, Astin suggests: 1) Research on service-learning needs to look at both individual and collective organizational/ structural outcomes; 2) Service-learning research needs to look at program impacts on the exteriors and interiors of the individuals and organizations being studied. p. 99 [original emphasis] Astin's use of the model and suggestions for assessment are instructive for their reference to the systemic impact of change processes. Change in any one part of the community "system" impacts the others and thus cannot be studied in isolation. Individual actions are interdependent on those of the collective to produce meaningful outcomes for structures, organizations and institutions, which in turn provide feedback that affects actions and relations on an individual and collective level. For Astin, the implications for assessment are clear: We must evaluate outcomes and change in general in terms of the interdependencies among all parts of the system. In this essay we extend Astin's (2000) ideas about the systemic relationship among CSL constituencies to the assessment of learning as communication. That is, while we too see the importance of evaluating outcomes in terms of the connections among parts (constituencies) to form a holistic system, our concern for assessment envelops both process and outcome. Learning in CSL and the assessment thereof might fruitfully be argued to be constructed in communication with others, thereby complicating the divisions between Astin's version of the internal individual (cognitions, values, beliefs) and the individual's external actions (outcomes) as well as with the institutional culture and structure. That is, actions are always meaningful and meaning is made in (inter)action with others; the process of meaning-making is itself empirical, just as outcomes are social facts. From this perspective, we see learning not simply as an individual activity but as a communicative process (see, for example, Dewey, 1925; Habermas, 1984) which cannot be separated from the experience of its occurrence. Viewing learning in this manner offers a window (or maybe a lens) into the CSL experience, because so much of what we and our students take away from those experiences in the community seems so rich, complex, and difficult to name, and thus to easily isolate, categorize, and measure. …

A Logic Model of Service-Learning: Tensions and Issues for Further Consideration.

Abstract: This paper introduces a conceptual model for supporting the continued development of service-learning as a pedagogy of engagement. A logic diagram is used to facilitate understanding of service-learning. The model illustrates the (a) complex elements involved in creating or sustaining a strong program, (b) potential tensions within the field, and (c) evaluation requirements at the level of a program or campus. The logic model also identifies tensions and issues that merit ongoing discussion amongst those committed to the continued development of service-learning in higher education. ********** Interest in service-learning has grown dramatically over the last 20 years. It is practiced in an increasing number of colleges and universities, and the literature on service-learning is expanding by leaps and bounds. Indeed, this pedagogy may be moving from the periphery of the academy to center stage as institutions of higher learning reassess their place in the democratic project (Coles, 1999). Prompted by these developments, the Indiana Campus Compact Faculty Fellows Class of 20032004 determined that a year-long conversation about service-learning's standing and prospects might prove useful. Three questions guided our effort: What have we, as a group of practitioners, learned to date? How might we contribute to the ongoing conversation about the nature and future of service-learning? And what concerns would we recommend that the field focus on over the course of the next decade? We approached our extended conversation with a certain degree of trepidation. After all, others have made our inquiry possible. In fact, the service-learning model around which we organized our investigation draws significantly upon the contributions of other scholars and practitioners. At the same time, a comprehensive review of the literature extended beyond the scope of this project. We therefore decided to focus first on certain tensions that have become evident and then look forward. A summary of our deliberations follows on how service-learning practitioners should proceed. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a conceptual model for supporting the continued development of service-learning as a pedagogy of engagement. In the first section, a service-learning model structured in the form of a logic diagram is presented. This logic diagram, though built to our own specifications, has the potential to act as a powerful vehicle for understanding the complexities of service-learning, analyzing differences in conceptions of the field, and permitting evaluations of specific campuses or programs. As such, the introduction of a model based on a logic diagram provides an example of Boyer's (1990) scholarship of integration, allowing identification and discussion of tensions in the field while creating the opportunity for alternative logic diagrams to be compared in ways that further collective understanding of the field. In our second section, six tensions are noted and examined. In the third, we identify ten issues pertaining to service-learning that, in our judgment, will merit attention in upcoming years. Our claims are normative rather than empirical in nature. They constitute, in effect, a reflection on service-learning's past and future. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] A Conceptual Model of Service-Learning The Alliance for Service Learning in Education Reform has defined service-learning as "a method of teaching through which students apply newly acquired academic skills and knowledge to address real-life needs in their own communities" (Payne, 2000, p. 41). Jacoby (1996) describes service-learning as a form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and community needs employing both critical reflective analysis and a deep commitment to reciprocity in all interactions with the community. To this end, she argues that a hyphen should both separate and connect the words "service" and "learning" in order to communicate the critical interaction that takes place between the two. …

Managing the Challenges of Teaching Community-Based Research Courses: Insights from Two Instructors.

Abstract: In community-based research (CBR), faculty, students, and community partners collaborate on research projects. This emerging pedagogy presents numerous challenges to instructors teaching CBR courses, including: finding a disciplinary connection, building CBR into the curriculum, ensuring student readiness, and structuring the CBR experience (Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003). In this article, these challenges are addressed by the instructor of a new CBR course for undergraduates and the instructor of an established course for graduate students. This discussion is intended to help prospective or current CBR instructors anticipate and manage the challenges of their courses. ********** Community-based research (CBR) is a significant part of the growing community-engagement movement in higher education worldwide. CBR is a research model in which faculty, students, and community partners collaborate to address shared questions with research projects. In this model, CBR provides a forum for the deepening of university-community partnerships through research. Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue (2003) describe three basic principles of CBR that distinguish it from traditional social science research. First, CBR is collaborative, involving individuals within and outside of the academy, and including community partners; this is not a scenario where the community serves as a "lab" for university-sponsored research interests. Second, CBR validates multiple sources of knowledge through collecting and disseminating diverse types of information. In this way, CBR requires the collection of data from a variety of sources and shares findings in methods most appropriate to the research project. Third, CBR is change oriented and guided by social justice goals; CBR is not undertaken to support the status quo, but to help support the growth of organizations or individuals. Projects completed in this paradigm are designed to address an issue or need identified by a community partner organization or for a population served by such an organization. In the practice of CBR, students, faculty, and community members collaborate on research with the purpose of addressing a pressing community problem or effecting social change. The research topic emanates from the community, but all participating project partners (e.g., faculty, students, community residents/organizations) determine the focus and scope of the research project, shape the research questions, and design the research methodology. They may also collaborate on collecting and analyzing data. Furthermore, all partners are involved in the dissemination of findings, which often takes a variety of forms besides the standard venue of publishing in scholarly journals; the findings from CBR projects are designed to provide information immediately usable to the community partner. Therefore, CBR findings can be disseminated through traditional approaches such as reports, but also non-traditional outlets such as community meetings, workshops, Web sites, pamphlets, newsletters--whatever media are most useful for the partner. In universities and colleges in the United States, CBR is undertaken in many different institutional forms, ranging from a solo practitioner on one campus to citywide and regional consortium structures that involve several universities and community organizations (Strand, et al., 2003; Stoecker et al., 2003). The resulting CBR projects involve students in studies that address many different kinds of social issues, including discrimination in housing, inequity in schools, the environmental impact of local industries, and the effectiveness of community change projects. Students undertake these projects through a variety of curricular configurations, such as graduate and undergraduate classes, theses, independent studies, seminars, and internships. This paper describes a framework for managing the challenges of teaching CBR courses. …

Behind the Rhetoric: Applying a Cultural Theory Lens to Community-Campus Partnership Development

Abstract: The nature of engagement between American campuses and communities is contested. This article is an invi- tation to reconsider why community-campus partnerships often look so different and have diverse and some- times negative outcomes. Using a cultural theory approach (Thompson, Ellis, & Wildavsky, 1990) to eluci- date the four main cultural frames that inform human behavior—hierarchist, individualistic, fatalistic, and egalitarian—this treatment maps these frames onto the broad terrain of community-campus partnerships. This exploration enables service-learning and other partnership building practitioners to more clearly rec- ognize and understand the preconceptions that influence partners' approaches. Because service-learning rhetoric is heavily biased toward egalitarian (reciprocal, mutual) relationship building, it does not neces- sarily ensure that all entities on and off campus understand or accept this approach. This application sug- gests several areas for future research as service-learning practitioners "unlearn a belief system" and work to build a new system in its place.

The Impact of Partnership-Centered, Community-Based Learning on First-Year Students' Academic Research Papers.

Abstract: This article presents a control group study of the influence of a partnership-centered, community-based learning program on students’ academic writing. The improved writing of first-year students in the Chicago Civic Leadership Certificate Program (CCLCP), we argue, results from the deeply situated learning that took place in the context of reciprocal, community-based relationships. We also argue that research on the impact of community-based learning should take into account the contemporary university’s emerging paradigm of engaged learning and research, which calls for a redefinition of partnership and reciprocity.

A human capital model: Service-learning in the micro business incubator program

Abstract: This paper presents a service-learning approach to inner city revitalization that is grounded in a human capital model for economic development The case study demonstrates how a private university became the catalyst for growth in an ‘at risk’ neighborhood of an urban inner city Our ongoing service-learning project, called The Upper Albany Micro Business Incubator (MBI), brings together university faculty, students, and inner city entrepreneurs to create an environment of mutual learning, shared respect, understanding, and collaboration Preliminary impacts of the program are described as well as future directions and recommendations for sustaining development in inner cities using such an approach