Developing just citizens in Australia.

Abstract

Community service is a core activity for Australian universities. Therefore, the effectiveness with which universities interact with the communities they seek to serve has become a critical success factor in higher education. This article suggests that universities that encourage and resource authentic community engagement also help to build a more just and democratic society.

Introduction

An enduring challenge for Australian society is the development of participatory, critically minded and just citizens. Research at Australian Catholic University shows how a key strategy in addressing the challenge is the building of positive educational relationships among communities, schools, and universities through community service learning initiatives (1). The development of engaged citizens who participate fully in society, are critically-minded in relation to that society, and just in their aspirations, attitudes, and actions necessarily raises issues about schools as social institutions, and classrooms and community settings as learning contexts. This article suggests that universities, through their influence and impact on school education, have a significant role to play in helping Australian society build educational partnerships that will help develop the kind of engaged citizens that the nation both desires and needs.

The Challenges Facing Education

Australia, like other developed nations, "is in the midst of a profound economic and social transformation" (McClure, 2000: 1). In many ways, the most significant challenge facing education is the very uncertainty of the future, particularly given recent international events. With uncertainty, comes anxiety and insecurity, and the temptation is "to regress to old world values and past conservatism to cope with the onrush of that insecurity" (Sheehan, 2000: 6) when what is actually required is rethinking and re-configuring approaches, systems and strategies (see also McClure, 2000).

A recent Australian government review stated, "Our society stands between contrasting but interacting worlds--local and international, European and Asian, low and high tech" (NBEET, 1998: 1). Like education systems in other countries Australia's education systems are linked to and influenced by the community's search for: guiding values, a sense of identity, and meaning and purpose. Against this background, Australians, both collectively and individually, are increasingly seeking answers to how we educate individuals to be tolerant, compassionate, socially trusting and well practised in civic and moral responsibility.

In Australia, the coming together of cultures through immigration (multiculturalism) has both changed and challenged Australian's understandings of citizenship. We struggle to define clearly what citizenship means. We search for an identity as citizen that is inclusive of country and culture of origin. Hughes, Bellamy and Black (2000) pose the question, "How ... does one build or strengthen trust among people so that there is openness to the stranger--the person from a different background and perhaps from a different culture?" This is a critical question for education to deal with in meeting the challenges of the times.

Developing Participatory, Critically-Minded and Just Citizens

Developing individuals who are tolerant, compassionate, socially trusting and responsible accords with the 'multi-dimensional' notion of the attributes of engaged citizenship: a sense of identity, the enjoyment of certain rights, the fulfilment of corresponding obligations, a degree of interest and involvement in public affairs, and an acceptance of basic social values (Cogan, 1998b). In an era of 'market forces' and "economic rationalism' educational institutions are finding it difficult to educate students in the importance of values, responsibility and a true sense of trusting commitment. Importantly, there is a crucial link between civility and the civil nature of our society. As Krygier (1997) says, "in civil society, it is reasonable to trust people who one reasonably believes will behave civilly. This is rarely everyone, but if it is no one the society is in very bad shape. Indeed, if it is really no one, there is no society" (62), and in society "some values, and some approaches to matters of value, both allow us to live together with others and make available chances to live well with them too" (43).

Issues for Schools

Schools are often places where, particularly throughout the middle years of schooling, students see little relevance of education to their lives and teachers struggle to maintain enthusiasm and direction for the task of educating young people (McFadden & Munns, 2002). Some of the more long-standing and unsolved problems in education relate to student under-achievement, disaffection, alienation and disengagement - all moving away from productive learning, particularly for young adolescents (Hill & Russell, 1999). In responding to this issue of disengagement from learning, McFadden and Munns (2002: 359) remind us that we need definitions of student engagement, "beyond narrow ideas of students being on task and complying with teachers' wishes: ... the sense among students that 'school is for me'." The growing literature about community service learning (CSL) and educational partnerships between schools, communities and universities suggests that real-life experience and community-based learning can be central to the building of individual and collective efficacy. This is true not only for teachers engaging with marginalised students but also for building efficacy among students, engaging them in their own education, and enhancing learning and social outcomes (2). In addition, the building of school--community--university partnerships helps foster learning as a life long process and enables engagement with cultural differences.

CSL suggests a globally oriented, 'deliberation-based' curriculum, the use of information and media-based pedagogy, use of technology as both communication and research tool, a focus on environment and problems of a global nature like poverty, pollution, religious conflict, and "working on projects of a civic or public nature" (Cogan, 1998a: 160-162). The literature describes the kind of CSL projects on which students work as having the following components: "an essential question, active research and investigation, academic rigor and reflection, a real-world community connection, and applied problem solving in addressing an authentic school or community issue, need or problem through direct service or advocacy" (Hornbeck, 2000: 665). In Philadelphia public schools, for example, a CSL initiative involving every grade level in 259 schools engaged with issues such as school violence, illiteracy, voter apathy, hunger, pollution, aging, and community history (Hornbeck, 2000: 665). Evaluation of CSL programs in schools has found that CSL reinforces students' motivation to learn and assists them to develop the knowledge and skills to become effective, productive, caring young adults involved both in their community and nation (Tenebaum, 2000).

Community Service Learning in Teacher Education

Developing a civil society is not only a concern of the school education sector. A recent benchmarking study of community service in teacher education showed a need for Australian higher education institutional policies to give priority to community service in teacher education programs, and for the development of appropriate structures and the allocation of adequate resources to support a community engagement approach (Butcher, Howard, McMeniman & Thom, 2002).

The Australian Catholic University, together with Griffith University and the federal government's Department of Employment Education Training and Youth Affairs (now the Department of Education, Science and Training), conducted the study which examined the role of teacher education in developing 'engaged citizens' and community service in enhancing the fabric of community. It also examined student community placements as a pedagogical strategy and community settings as learning contexts. The study focused on higher education but drew significantly on service learning literature from K-12. The study reaffirmed that education makes a difference to the way teachers and student teachers see themselves, and to how others see them. It supported the view that educational settings can be sites of intercultural understanding and that community settings can provide a context for such intercultural understanding to take place: particularly in contexts where issues of social justice and notions of citizenship and community are core concerns.

For example, Butcher, Labone and Howard (2001) evaluated the response of teacher education students involved in Community Outreach Program placements with social justice agencies at Australian Catholic University. The Community Outreach/Social Analysis & Action Program of the School of Education, Mount Saint Mary Campus, requires education students to spend 80 hours working in an approved community service organisation of their choice (supported by a course of lectures and a substantial handbook of reading materials). The students set individual learning goals and complete the placements in addition to their academic load. Students maintain a learning journal in which they note not only their experiences but the relevance of these experiences to them as intending teachers and informed citizens. After working with people who were marginalised in society, students evidenced in their learning journals a heightened awareness of social justice issues and social responsibility, and a growth in efficacy for social engagement.

The study indicated that community service learning (CSL), as a pedagogical strategy, provides relevant educational content and challenges students to see different experiences as educationally valid, enabling them to experience different cultures and situations. As Daigre (2000: 8) says, "service-learning offers a means for creating ... spaces and for challenging young people to participate in ... democratic efforts." Butcher, Labone and Howard (2001) argue teachers participating in CSL programs experience a heightened sense of efficacy and social responsibility because of their involvement. The study supported the findings of Prentice and Garcia (2000) who view service learning as a marriage between occupational and/or academic learning and service to the community, based on a reciprocal relationship in which service reinforces and strengthens the learning, and learning reinforces and strengthens the service. It also highlighted the crucial importance that students engage in critical reflection about their learning. By combining service with a reflective framework, the benefits to students, staff and community agencies, far exceed those of service or learning offered separately (Butcher, Howard, McMeniman & Thom, 2002). Some important benefits for students included:

* an enhancement in their self-concept and their knowledge about issues in their community;

* an opportunity to engage in career exploration;

* improved interpersonal and human relations skills;

* the opportunity to make a real contribution to the community and see social participation and action as making a difference to people's lives.

The study cited many examples from both overseas and within Australia of the interplay between community and the academy in the development and implementation of education programs that have as their central element the development of active and engaged citizens.

The Role of Universities in CSL and Developing Just Citizens

Collaboration and partnership have become central to the role that universities should, and need to, play in developing a more just and civil society (Association of Commonwealth Universities, 2001). This is part of what Boyer (1994, pA48) proposed as the mission of a 'connected institution'. For example, in recognition of the critical role of community in the academic life of Australian universities, Australian Catholic University (2002) has adopted, as an institution, the term community engagement as an overarching descriptor of a range of community-related activities involving staff and students integrally linked to the professional education of both students and staff (3).

Universities, particularly through their teacher education programs, play a crucial role in constructing education systems that are more inclusive, equitable, just and socially aware. In building a community service learning agenda, universities similarly play a fundamental role in bringing together schools and communities by providing: a forum for the discussion of partnership goals and processes; intellectual support for the establishment and organisation of appropriate programs; expertise in assessing program outcomes; and evaluation protocols and suggestions for program improvement.

A critical role for universities is to provide a link in the building of school and community partnerships as a strategy for achieving productive educational outcomes, including student engagement and social tolerance. The partnerships and linkages suggested to implement a CSL agenda are inter alia those between schools, their own communities and the wider community, high schools and elementary schools (focusing particularly on the middle years of schooling), across systems, and among regional schools. Importantly for universities, CSL is not merely an instructional method or philosophy, it is essentially about the development of mutually beneficial, supportive, and equitable relationships:

... the relationship is more one of reciprocity than receiving. When the relationship among participants involved in a service project is defined by equality, all persons develop, rather than are given, the voice necessary for stating their needs, goals and responsibilities. The conversation or relationship between participants, rather than one person or group, directs service-learning (Howard & Fortune, 2000: 25).

As McFadden (2001) says, the democratic credentials of the notion of partnership may seem self-evident, but to be truly democratic what is represented as a partnership has to evidence characteristics such as: equality of status; mutual respect for diversity of expertise and knowledge; significant and meaningful consultation; agreements regarding agendas; productive and action oriented collaboration; and mutually beneficial outcomes (4). In addition, he argues that partnerships constructed along democratic lines deliver benefits at various levels. First, they allow the sharing of knowledge constructed in different but connected fields of practice. Secondly, they allow the development of shared expertise. Thirdly, in relation to both knowledge and expertise, they allow the development of reservoirs of practice from the sharing of individual and/or group repertoires. Finally, they allow for a multiplicity of meanings and for reflexiveness in the process of sharing experiences.

Most importantly, successful models exist of the 'connected' university and their success stories as well as their challenges provide a valuable resource to Australian universities (see, for example, Benson, Harkavy & Puckett's (2000) description of school and community partnerships in West Philadelphia with the University of Pennsylvania). As Hicks (1999: 17) states, "Real life examples of successful social, political and environmental action can help release the creativity of our students and in turn lead to purposeful participation which lies at the heart of any notion of empowerment."

Conclusion

The mission of Australian Catholic University now includes the central element of community engagement. Research at Australian Catholic University in relation to community service learning (CSL) in teacher education supports the view that students who are involved in such programs are more aware of the community in which they will teach and more willing to be meaningfully engaged with the community they will serve. This article argues that, more broadly, the implementation in Australia of a CSL agenda and related school, community and university partnerships would result in the strong enhancement of teacher efficacy, student outcomes, and community relations. In addition, the collaborative implementation of a CSL agenda has been shown in other countries to be associated with the development of engaged young people who participate more fully in society, are critically-minded in relation to that society, and just in their social aspirations, attitudes, and actions.

Notes

(1) 'Community service' is also referred to as 'service learning' and 'community service learning' in the literature. The authors' preferred construction is 'community service learning' (CSL) as used by Wade (1995). Reducing CSL to service learning runs the risk, we believe, of emphasising service for rather than partnership with the community. Anderson (1998) defines community service learning as both a philosophy of education and an instructional method. CSL 'blends" key elements such that the service provider and recipient are both beneficiaries. There is a dual focus on the service being provided and the learning that occurs.

(2) Goddard, Hoy and Hoy (2000) argue that collective teacher efficacy may help to "explain the differential effect that schools have on student achievement" (483).

(3) Community engagement in this context includes community service and other activities through which the University engages co-operatively with a wide range of professional and other communities in the provision of undergraduate courses, professional development programs, research, consultancies and other academic services. Here, engagement is defined as a reciprocal process whereby communication, interaction and collaboration effectively lead to a shared perception of social issues and concerns.

(4) Russell and Flynn (2000) report that long-term collaborators in education believe the success of their partnerships is based on six key factors: "willingness to listen, mutual respect, long-term commitment, frequent communication, flexibility, and careful selection of partners" (196).

References

Anderson, J. (1998). Service-learning and teacher education. ERIC Digest, ERIC NO: ED421481.

Association of Commonwealth Universities. (2001). Engagement as a core value for the university: A consultation document. Association of Commonwealth Universities, April.

Benson, L., Harkavy, I. & Puckett, J (2000). All implementation revolution as a strategy for fulfilling the democratic promise of university-community partnerships: Penn-West Philadelphia as an experiment in progress. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 29 (1): 24-45.

Boyer, E. (1994). Creating the new American college. The Chronicle of Higher Education 40 (27): A48.

Butcher, J., Howard, P., McManiman, M & Thorn, G. (2002). Engaging community, service or learning? Benchmarking community service in teacher education. DeparWaent of Education, Science and Training.

Butcher, J., Labone, E., & Howard, P. (2001). Developing teacher responsibility and social Efficacy--A community outreach approach. Paper presented at the ISATT 10th Biennial Conference, Faro, Portugal, October.

Cogan, J. J. (1998a). Citizenship education for the 21st century: Setting the context, In J. J. Cogan & R. Derricott, Citizenship for the 21st Century: An international perspective on education. London: Kogan Page.

Cogan, J. J. (1998b). The challenge of multidimensional citizenship for the 21st century, In J. J. Cogan & R. Derricott, Citizenship for the 21st century: An international perspective on education. London: Kogan Page.

Daigre, E. (2000). Toward a critical service-learning pedagogy: A Freirean approach to civic literacy. Academic Exchange Quarterly 4 (4): 6-14.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K. & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 37 (2): 479-507.

Hicks, D. (1999). Praxis of the heart: Reflections on education for the new century. The Raja Roy Singh Lecture at The Fifth LINESCO-ASCEID International Conference, Bangkok, December.

Hill, P. W., & Russell, V. J. (1999). Systemic, whole school reform of the middle years of schooling. In R. J. Cremers & B. P. M. Stringfield (Eds) Enhancing educational excellence, equity and efficiency. Dordrecht: Klunwer Academic Publishing.

Howard, A. & Fortune, J. C. (2000). Service-learning as the meeting place for ethics and pedagogy. Academic Exchange Quarterly 4 (4): 22-29.

Hornbeck, D. (2000). Service learning and reform in the Philadelphia public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, May: 665.

Hughes, P., Bellamy, J. & Black, A. (2000). Building social trust through education. In I. Winter (Ed) Social capital and public policy in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Krygier, M. (1997). Between fear and hope: Hybrid thoughts on public values. Sydney: ABC Books.

McClure Report (2000). Participation support for a more equitable society. http://www.facs.gov.au/wr_int_rep (accessed 19/Jenuary/01).

McFadden, M. G. & Munns, G. (2002). Student engagement and the social relations of pedagogy. British Journal of Sociology of Education 23 (3): 357-366.

McFadden, M. G. (2001). Pooling expertise: Collaborative research as a tool. Keynote address, Field Based Learning Conference, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, October.

NBEET (1998). Knowing ourselves and others: The humanities in Australia into the 21st century. Canberra: The Australian Academy of the Humanities.

Prentice, M. & Garcia, R. M. (2000). Service learning: The next generation in education. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 24: 19-26.

Russell, J. F. & Flynn, R. B. (2000). Commonalities across effective collaboratives. Peabody Journal of Education 75 (3): 196-204.

Sheehan, P. W. (2000). Issues and trends of Catholic universities: Australia. Paper presented at the IFCU General Assembly, Fremantle, August.

Tenebaum, I. M. (2000). Building a framework for service-learning: The South Carolina experience. Phi Delta Kappan 81 (9): 666-669.

Wade, R. C. (1995). Developing active citizens: Community service learning in social studies teacher education. Social Studies 86 (3): 122-128.

Jude Butcher, Australian Catholic University

Peter Howard, Australian Catholic University

Elizabeth Labone, Australian Catholic University

Mark McFadden, Australian Catholic University and Charles Sturt University 

Peter W Sheehan, Australian Catholic University

Butcher is Head of the School of Education (NSW), was the principal researcher in a study "Benchmarking Community Service in Teacher Education." Howard is the Coordinator of the community outreach program in the same school. Labone, who is also based in the same School of Education. McFadden works with both Australian Catholic University and Charles Sturt University. Sheehan, Vice-Chancellor of Australian Catholic University, has placed community engagement as a core element of the University's teaching and research.