An Argument for the Stand-alone Service-learning Course.

Abstract

This paper explores how drawbacks associated with service-learning are minimized or alleviated by the stand-alone service-learning course: inconsequential and short-lived connections between site and college/university, problems with student assessment/evaluation, problems with instilling a sense of civic responsibility/character building within the experience, and lack of faculty support and incentive.

Introduction

One of the recent trends in pedagogy is the incorporation of service-learning into the classroom. Although service-learning has been defined in various ways by several scholars, most acknowledge that the essence of service-learning is its connection between students and community outlets (see Ehrlich, 1997; Yarmolinshy & Martello, 1996; Sax & Astin, 1997; McKenna & Ward, 1996). One of the more inclusive definitions of service-learning is offered by the American Association of Higher Education:

   Service-learning means a method under which students learn and develop a
   thoughtfully organized service that: (sic) is conducted in and meets the
   needs of a community and is coordinated with an institution of higher
   education and with the community; helps foster civic responsibility; is
   integrated into and embraces the academic curriculum of the students
   enrolled; and includes structured time for the students to reflect on the
   service experience (Corbett & Kendall, 1999: 67).

Service-learning can be categorized within the more general paradigm of experiential learning, which includes out-of-the-classroom experiences such as internships, field research, or field trips. However, its major distinction lies in the philosophical basis from which it springs--integrating a sense of civic responsibility into the academic environment in order to impart character development as part of the academic mission (Matthews, 1997; Gaudiani, 1997; Ehrlich, 1997). That is, for the democratic process to function, society needs active citizens with a sense of responsibility and involvement in the communities in which they live, not passive consumers. In fact, service-learning has been posited as a way for the academy to acknowledge its commitment or renew its civic responsibility to the community it finds itself in.

Studies that have assessed service-learning experiences conclude that the outcomes have been positive for all involved: students, faculty, institution, and community (Blash-Cumbo & Vadeboncouer, 1998; Bringle & Kremer, 1994,; Cohen & Kinsey, 1994; Driscoll, Holland, 1996; Giles & Eyler, 1994; Hesser, 1995, Howard & King, 1993; Wechler & Fogel, 1995). Students are more motivated in their class work, work harder and learn more; and many of the benefits acquired from their service-learning experience are long-term (Cohen & Kinsey, 1994; Eyler & Giles, 1994; Sax and Astin, 1997). Faculty find that student learning is enhanced and that there is an interaction between theory and practice and thought to action (Yarmolinshy & Martello, 1996). Community organizations have also found student contributions valuable (Gray, et al., 1996). Campus/community relationships are constructive, and connections are made that did not exist before (McKenna & Ward, 1996).

Researchers have studied particular class experience regarding the incorporation of service-learning alongside more traditional classroom methods (Cooper & Julier, 1993; Cohen & Kinsey, 1994). Cohen and Kinsey (1994) incorporated service-learning projects into the "Mass Communication and Society" course and found that the greatest strength of this approach was in assisting students in placing classroom material into a meaningful context. They also discovered that students and teachers felt that the service-learning projects were an effective use of time. Focusing on service-learning designated courses, Corbett and Kendall (1999) noted that students who enrolled in these courses believed that the service-learning experiences heightened their sense of citizenship and assisted them in understanding basic concepts and theories of course content. Other researchers have looked at university-wide curricula and have determined that service-learning components are found predominantly in education and social science courses (Sax & Astin, 1997).

Although the benefits of service-learning are clear, this form of pedagogy is not insulated from criticism. Some researchers have questioned the ability of service-learning initiatives to achieve meaningful connections between colleges/universities and the communities in which they are located (Mattson, 1990). Specifically, Gugerly and Swezer (1996) suggest that rather than taking the effort and time to make meaningful alliances with community sites through interactive dialogues, educators have merely acquired these sites as part of the roster of possible student placement. Others have questioned the assessment process needed to validate service-learning experiences as accomplishing the goals for which they are designed (Driscoll, et. al., 1996). Hondagnue-Sotelo and Raskoff (1994) suggest that instead of empowering students, service-learning reveals student prejudices and inexperience. Eyler and Giles (1994) have challenged how the civic responsibility goal of service-learning is derailed when students fail to understand explicitly what this means. Questions also arise concerning how the underlying sense of responsibility can be undermined by the focus of many higher education institutions on professional training. Thus, service-learning becomes yet another line item on students' resumes and part of their career enhancement (Mattson, 1990).

This current research is second in a series of studies that explore service-learning in the academy and attempts to address some of the problems inherent in service-learning as a pedagogical tool. Our first analysis (Panici & Lasky, 2000) was an exploratory investigation of service-learning.(1) This study further refines the concept of service-learning by examining apparent drawbacks noted by respondents as reflected in the following themes; embedded within each theme are solutions that support the existence of a stand-alone course in service-learning. The following four themes emerged in the discussion of service-learning drawbacks: a) inconsequential and short lived connections between site and college/university, b) problems with student assessment/evaluation, c) problems with instilling a sense of civic responsibility/character building within the experience, and d) lack of faculty support and incentive.

Connections Between Site and College/University

When asked to define "service-learning" in their own words, respondents inclusively cited the linkage of college/university to the community as this pedagogical tool's most definitive characteristic. However, this relationship can be wrought with problems, specifically if the service-learning experience is integrated within a course's content and is only a part of the classroom experience that the instructor facilitates. The instructor, most likely, does not have the time to establish the sort of relationship with community organizations which would create the best linkages between site and department/unit.

The literature suggests for the most effective service-learning partnerships to be created and sustained, there must be a real and continuous dialogue between site and department/unit (Gugerly & Swezey, 1996).

In the context of the real classroom experience, most service-learning, at present, is conducted as part of a course's requirements; this scenario does not allow the instructor a great deal of time or opportunity, given other course considerations, to develop and continually facilitate productive interactions between site and classroom. Rather than finding areas ripe for collaborative problem-solving, service-learning often takes on the form of a product-oriented outcome; students "contract" with a site to produce newsletters, brochures/pamphlets, research projects or websites, for instance. Product-oriented service-learning experiences, although the most evident as revealed by the survey, may lead to cursory partnerships. Community organizations become a Rolodex of placements; "collaboration" is driven by a specific need that students either are qualified or not to assume (they can or cannot design a website) rather than collaboration built upon a substantive relationship between the academy and the community.

In the case of the stand-alone course, the instructor and students have the opportunity to dedicate themselves to exploring the possible connections that can be engaged within the community. Oftentimes, the organizations that may be the most suitable and worthwhile for connections are those that are "undercovered"--grassroots-based and underfunded non-profits. The following criteria could be explored in selecting and establishing substantive connections:

* contacting sites and exploring the possibilities of collaborations and mutual concerns/agendas

* charting a course of collaboration with the site (includes goals, expectations, outcomes, collaborative grant writing, etc.)

* establishing joint meetings to evaluate these connections and reflect on the collaboration.

One ultimate outcome of introducing service-learning pedagogy into the academic is to re-invent or revive the academy's commitment to the community it finds itself in. Ironically, the academy has divested itself from its locality as it has increasingly sought to establish its reputation by involving itself in the national and international arenas.

Service-learning initiatives reinforce local and regional connections, and softens the barriers that are perceived by local citizenry to surround the academy. The community sees its furore growth and vision directly linked with that of its educational institution affiliation. The stand-alone course demonstrates that commitment.

On a more pragmatic level, established and substantive linkages with community sites alleviate a great many "course quality" issues that surface, more specifically with service-learning components that are integrated within the framework of established courses. For one thing, a consistent complaint among instructors who value service-learning in the classroom is the inconsistent supervision of their students in site placements and the varied quality of this supervision. The predominant reason for these problems is the lack of time most instructors face in actually meeting up with site supervisors (most never do) when the service-learning component is embedded into existing courses. The preoccupation for most instructors with little time to cultivate linkages is to assess site in terms of "fit" for student.

The stand-alone course does much to rectify this drawback, a substantive connection between department/unit and community, in that the instructor has more time and energy to devote in making these linkages meaningful and fruitful. The faculty member shoulders the quality of the relationship between site and the academy. Most community sites, generally, are quite ignorant of what academic linkages can accomplish, how these linkages can be operationalized, and how to sustain them.

Problems with Student Assessment and Evaluation

Another drawback is the difficulty of assessing student performance for service-learning commitments. Research indicates that all constituents involved with service-learning should be included in the assessment: instructor, student, and site. However, unless there is authentic dialogue and feedback during the entire experience, assessment becomes meaningless. In most cases, objective and standardized forms at semester's end seem the most utilized procedure. It is apparent that assessment is not an ongoing activity; it is apparently not a very reflective one for any of its participants. Ironically, one of the most valued characteristics of service-learning as a pedagogical tool is its emphasis on thoughtful reflection that translates and converts educational experience into a "real world" education (McKenna & Ward, 1996). Students are meant to contemplate how the theoretical implications of the course work apply to a lived experience.

The stand-alone course which has the opportunity to establish substantive relationships between participants can build into the process feedback and reflective experiences during the course of the semester as part of the ongoing dialogue and connection. Meetings during the course of the semester can be dedicated to how well goals and outcomes are being met. Students and site supervisors can communicate their frustrations and sense of accomplishments as well as their suggestions for improvement. Although all parties are often busy and overextended, the instructor can communicate the necessity to continually reflect on the experience in order to assess how participants are doing; the instructor role becomes more clearly defined in the process--as the facilitator for the reflective process.

Civic Responsibility and Character Building

One of the drawbacks to service-learning is that the very motivation that encourages instructors to offer service-learning in their curriculum in the first place, to develop responsible citizenry in their students, is often the very experience that is lost on their students. Instructors have found that service-learning built into existing course content becomes yet another citation for students trying to build a professional resume. Service-learning, like internships and practicums, is another rung on their professional ladder. The ideals of responsible citizenship, altruism, and do-goodism are not immediately apparent to students, particularly when the service-learning component is integrated within the classroom setting as yet another course requirement that has to be met. Its character-building potential is deflated in the context of a syllabus; its mark is not profound.

Dedicating a course to the service of service sends the message to students that the department/unit values its responsibilities to the community. One way to communicate the academy's commitment to character development is to expose students to ideas that privilege the concerns of service-learning--to divest a course of traditional "content" inherent to one's curriculum and to invest it with material which considers the discipline's responsibility to the culture as a whole and one's place in that culture. The concept of "civic responsibility" and its discussion as it relates to the student's discipline is not an experience that somehow manifests itself by virtue of having students in a new environment and out of their own comfort zone. There has been the assumption that just being in the field interacting with a different constituency ipso facto made students more engaged and committed citizens.

Lack of Faculty Support and Incentive

Since most of the respondents involved in our survey taught courses that had service-learning as part of the course requirements, many thought that the effort needed to make this piece of their course work involved much more intense time commitment than they normally would exercise in a more traditional course offering. Most of these faculty thought that service-learning was valuable as a pedagogical tool to merit the extra time and commitment to making it work, but their frustration in having to juggle the demands along with their regular workload brought complaints and laments. Specifically, the basic pedagogical tenets of service-learning (meaningful dialogue, meaningful assessment and reflection, etc.) were undercut by the time that could be allocated or devoted to making it work.

Instructor discontent in trying to integrate service-learning in their traditional courses translated to feeling a lack of support by department/unit heads and colleagues. Many felt the irony in their situation---the altruism inherent in their sacrifice of their time in order to instill altruism in their students. The incentive to "overload" themselves with these commitments was seen as a drawback to service-learning advocates.

The stand-alone course, serving as part of a faculty member's workload, alleviates the burden of trying to juggle these commitments within existing courses while at the same time having the time to do justice to the various tenets of service-learning.

The evident drawbacks to instituting service-learning is pedagogical tenets into present curriculum are tempered by instituting a stand-alone course. Instructors can avail themselves to facilitating service-learning's more time-consuming commitments: productive and worthwhile linkages to community, reflective and thoughtful engagement by all constituent members of these linkages, and character development and growth among students. If given the support to pursue these initiatives, faculty will find rewards manifested both intrinsically and extrinsically (public scholarship or grant opportunities, for instance).

Endnotes

(1) A four-part questionnaire was created based on previous research in the field and geared to assessing service-learning in departments/units. The sample for this study was drawn from the AEJMC Journalism and Mass Communication Directory. All department chairs/heads belonging to the Association of Schools and Department of Journalism and Mass Communication were sent a survey. The chair/head was asked to complete the questionnaire or forward it to a faculty member in his/her department who was in a better position to answer the questions. Cover letters, surveys, and postage-paid return envelopes were mailed to 190 schools. A total of 55 questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 28.9 percent. Although this rate is less than desirable, one must consider a number of factors. Specifically, the fact to consider here is that if an institution had no service-learning, the questionnaire was not meaningful nor relevant in describing their curriculum.

References

Blash-Cumbo, K. & Vadeboncouer, J. (1998). What are students learning? Assessing service learning and the curriculum. American Educational Research Association, D.C.

Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 221-239.

Corbett, J. & Kendall, A. (1999, Winter). Evaluating service learning in the communication discipline. Journalism Educator, 53(3), 66-76.

Cohen, J. & Kinsey, D. (1994, Winter). Doing good and scholarship: A service learning study. Journalism Educator, 49(4), 4-14.

Cooper, D. & Julier, L. (1995). Writing the ties that bind: Service learning in the writing classroom. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 72-85.

Driscoll, A.; Holland, B.; Gelmon, S. & Kerrigan, S. (1996, Fall). An assessment for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 66-71.

Ehrlich, T. (1997, Summer/Fall). Civic learning: Democracy and education revisited. Educational Record, 57-65.

Eyler J. & Giles, D. E. (1994). Research and evaluation in community service: The higher education agenda. Racine: Proceedings from the Wingspread Service Learning Conference.

Gaudiani, C. L. (1997, Summer/Fall). Catalyzing community: The college as a model of civil society. Educational Record, 81-86.

Giles, D. E. & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of service learning in John Dewey: Toward a theory of service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1: 77-85.

Gray, M.; Geschwind, S.; Ondattje, E.; Robyn, A.; Klien, S.; Sax., L.; Astin, A. & Astin, H. (1996). Evaluation of learn and serve America, higher education: The first year report, Volume 1 (RAND and UCLA) CA: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.

Gugerly, C. & Swezey, E. (1996). Developing campus-community relationships. In B. Jacoby (Ed.). Service learning in higher education (pp. 92-107). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. & Raskoff, S. (1994). Community service learning: Promises and problems. Teaching Sociology, 22, 248-254.

Matthews, D. (1997, Summer/Fall). Higher education and public life. Educational Record, 11-17.

Mattson, K. (1998). Creating a democratic public: The struggle for urban participatory democracy during the progressive era. Pennsylvania State University Press.

McKenna, J. & Ward, K. (1996, May). Service learning as relevant pedagogy. Thresholds in Education, 18-21.

Panici, D. & Lasky, K. (2000). Service learning in the journalism and mass communication discipline. Paper presented at the annual Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Phoenix, AZ.

Sax, L. & Astin, A. (1997, Summer/Fall). The benefits of service learning: Evidence from undergraduates. Educational Record, 25-32.

Weschler, A., & Fogel, J. (1995). The outcomes of a service learning program. National Quarterly Society for Experiential Education, 20(4), 6-7, 25-26.

Yarmolinshy, A. & Martello, J. (Summer 1996). Engaging the campus in service to the community. Metropolitan Universities, 39-46.

Drs. Lasky and Panici are both associate professors in the Media Studies program, which offers a stand-alone service-learning course. <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>.

Kathryn Lasky, University of Southern Maine Daniel Panici, University of Southern Maine