ERIC REVIEW: Service Learning in the Community College.

After presenting a comprehensive definition of service learning in postsecondary education, the author reviews the literature on service learning at community colleges. In addition to discussing national initiatives to promote service learning experiences for students, this review provides examples of service learning programs and summarizes best practices for starting and managing such programs based on case studies in the literature. The results of recent program evaluation efforts are discussed, and the author defines current research needs to determine how service learning affects students.

During the 1990s, two curricular innovations grabbed the attention of the higher education community: service learning and distance education. Neither of these concepts was invented during that decade--correspondence courses were popular as far back as the 1800s, and service has long been part of higher education's tripartite mission, along with teaching and research. The approach to them, however, has changed dramatically in the past decade, resulting in substantially increased funding, availability, and public interest. In the case of distance education, the widespread availability of personal computers made taking classes from home more appealing to students. For service learning, the political context for its growth was reinvigorated by President Bush, who signed the National and Community Service Act of 1990 in an attempt to reinstill an ethic of service across the nation. Soon thereafter, President Clinton signed the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, which, by funding such programs as AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America, increased the focus on integrating student community service, volunteerism, and service learning into the curriculum (Berson, 1994; Serow, Calleson, Parker, & Morgan, 1996; Ward, 1996).

Perhaps because the widespread implementation of service learning has been a relatively recent phenomenon, the literature on the topic reflects a "honeymoon" period, with little writing devoted to critical analysis of the topic. Much of the writing is prescriptive, providing guidelines for those who want to start a service learning program. Many other publications are descriptive, offering details about the structure and participation levels of an individual institution's program. Less material is available about how the programs and participants are being evaluated, what the long-term effects are on the students who engage in service learning or the communities being served, or how service learning improves upon the extracurricular experience of community service. This article discusses the materials on service learning at community colleges, and points out some of the gaps in the literature that should, and undoubtedly will, be filled in the coming years as the programs become more ingrained in the curriculum.

Defining Service Learning and its Benefits

Service learning has its roots in two different types of programs: community service activities, which were traditionally considered part of the extracurricular realm, and experiential education, usually available as practicums or internships. The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) defines service learning as an "instructional methodology [that] integrates community service with academic instruction as it focuses on critical, reflective thinking and civic responsibility" (American Association of Community Colleges, 1995, p. 1). The Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges expands that definition to include the following purposes of service learning: (a) to assist students in acquiring and enhancing academic knowledge, civic skills, career aspirations, and an ethic of service; (b) to help faculty move from teaching-centered to learning-centered to community-centered pedagogy; (c) to assist colleges in becoming major contributors to community improvement; and (d) to help communities become safer places to live (Pickeral & Peters, 1997).

The benefits attributed to participation in service learning are extensive. They include enhanced learning, values clarification, increased sense of community and citizenship responsibilities, greater multicultural awareness, increased faculty involvement, improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills, improved self-esteem and competence, empathy for others, an opportunity for career exploration, and work skills development (Brown, 1998; Christiansen, 1994; Robinson, 1999/2000; Service-learning faculty manual, 1997).

The distinction between experiential education and service learning is unclear. AACC claims that service learning is "related to but does not include cooperative education, practicum, or internship programs" (American Association of Community Colleges, 1996, p. 6), but some consider service learning to be a type of experiential learning (McAleavey, 1996). As defined by Kolb (as cited in Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998), experiential learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. He describes learning as a four-stage cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.

This process serves as an ideal model for service learning, and the step of reflective observation helps to distinguish service learning from other experiential education. "Traditionally, students in these [experiential education] programs reflect primarily on their personal and professional development. We point out that service-learning focuses on reflection around notions and experiences of civic and social responsibility" (Fay & Glasson, 1998, p. 30). In addition, "one of the primary differences between experiential learning and service learning is that the focus of experiential learning is often on the benefit to students, whereas ... service-learning is reciprocally beneficial, with meaningful service being provided to the community and meaningful learning experiences provided for the student" (McAleavey, 1996, p. 3). The act of reflection also provides the critical distinction between service learning and the traditional concept of community service.

Service Learning at the Community College

Even before the phrase "service learning" was in popular use, community colleges were interested in the concept. In 1988 the Commission on the Future of Community Colleges recommended

   that all community colleges encourage a service program at their
   institution, one that begins with clearly stated objectives.... [and] that
   students participating in service programs be asked to write about their
   experience and to explore with a mentor and fellow students how it is
   related to what they have been studying in the classroom. (Commission on
   the Future of Community Colleges, 1988, p. 12)

The community colleges' tradition of involvement with their surrounding communities and their experience in tackling local problems seemed to create a natural fit with service learning (Barnett, 1996; Christiansen, 1994). In fact, community colleges pioneered the community-service function by offering a range of cultural and recreational activities for their local communities at the beginning of the twentieth century (Cohen & Brawer, 1996), and they continue this tradition by offering short-term courses, entertainment events, health information, and many other services to the public. Student volunteerism and service learning are important examples of the community service function.

Two of the leading supporters of these programs in this sector are the American Association of Community Colleges, which hosts a clearinghouse on service learning, and the Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges (CCNCCC) at Mesa Community College (AZ). The CCNCCC, which was established in 1990, has the dual mission of serving as a national advocate for community colleges to sustain service learning as a national movement, and promoting and implementing community service as a means of improving teaching and learning for the benefit of the students and the communities they serve (Pickeral & Peters, 1998). In addition to conducting research and publishing, the organization has sponsored annual conferences on the topic since 1992.

A 1995 survey by the AACC (Robinson & Barnett, 1996) on the status of service learning found the following: four out of five community colleges are already involved in (31%) or are interested in (46%) service learning; 70% of community college respondents consider community service to be part of their institutional mission; and social science and humanities courses are the most likely to incorporate service. The survey also identified the major sources of support and the obstacles. Faculty support is the most important reason service learning programs succeed, followed by community and administrative support, and student commitment. Insufficient funding and a lack of faculty release time are the two most significant impediments. A follow-up survey conducted in 1997 demonstrated that nearly half of all community colleges are offering service learning (Robinson, 1999/2000).

A 1998 report details the achievements of AACC's Learn and Serve America program. The goal of this three-year program was to develop the infrastructure for service learning in America's community colleges. Results of the program include the following:

(1) All 10 college programs were able to find funds to continue once the AACC/CNS funds ran out, either from the college budgets, from state Learn and Serve or AmeriCorps programs, or through new grants from local businesses and governments.

(2) At the 10 colleges 6,691 students performed 135,000 hours of community service at 1,683 agencies over a two-and-a-half year time period.

(3) The subgrantees became mentors to colleagues at other colleges interested in starting service learning programs.

Challenges faced during the three-year project were largely related to communication problems with subgrantees without Internet access and high staff turnover at two colleges (American Association of Community Colleges, 1998).

Starting a Service Learning Program

Much has been written, largely in the form of case studies (Pickeral & Peters, 1996a) and faculty guides (Garman, 1996; Wozniak, 1996), on the topic of how to start a service learning program at a community college. AACC's guide to organizing a service learning program emphasizes four conceptual and eight operational components. These include academic integrity, service that meets a need, reflection, and civic responsibility in the conceptual category; and faculty support, administration support, student support, community partnerships, service placement support, evaluation process, public relations, and sustainable funding in the operational area (American Association of Community Colleges, 1995). AACC also produced a list of best practices for sustaining service learning, which include starting small, creating advisory boards, connecting to existing initiatives, writing service learning into course competencies, combining student services with academic affairs, applying student fees to support the program, making presentations to the board of trustees, and networking with other colleges (Robinson & Barnett, 1998).

As part of its mission of promoting service learning, the CCNCCC has produced a series of books to guide community colleges in implementing service learning, including

   Building Sustainable Programs: A Guide to Developing and Maintaining
   Service-Learning at Community Colleges (Bucco, 1995);

   From the Margin to the Mainstream: The Faculty Role in Advancing
   Service-Learning on Community Colleges (Pickeral & Peters, 1996b);

   Tensions Inherent in Service-Learning: Achieving Balance (Pickeral &
   Peters, 1997); and

   Three Years After: Lessons Learned from a Service-Learning Project at
   Community Colleges (Pickeral & Peters, 1998)

A crucial up-front activity in establishing a service learning program is selling the concept internally, especially to faculty. One of the special challenges is to acknowledge, support, and not compete with the experiential programs and their dedicated faculty (Fay & Glasson, 1998). Other challenges include finding internal sources of funding, assuring faculty that academic rigor need not be compromised, gaining administrative support for the program, helping students find time for volunteer work, deciding which agencies to serve, and maintaining continuity in the face of changing leadership (Robinson, 1999/2000).

Once the idea has gained acceptance, there are a number of steps that must be followed in establishing a credible program. "Making the service-content connection requires creation of well-defined objectives, careful explanation of activities for both the site and the classroom, and a system for ongoing assessment" (Kleinman & Duffy, 1998, p. 7). For service learning to be an educational experience, it must meet the same criteria used for all methods of educational delivery: (a) it must include measurable objectives; (b) appropriate activities must be identified to effect learning that meets these objectives; and (c) learning must be able to be accomplished within a reasonable period of time and with a reasonable amount of effort (McAleavey, 1996).

Service learning faculty should present students with an action plan that includes a full explanation of the following elements:

(1) an overall goal for students participating in service learning and specific objectives to be met through participation in the project;

(2) the actions to be taken, including the minimum number of hours of service, journaling requirements, and guidelines for written assignments;

(3) potential obstacles, such as the time commitment to the project;

(4) available support, including assistance in selecting a site and examples of ethnographies conducted in similar settings; and

(5) the means by which students will be assessed, both during the semester and at the end of the course (Kleinman & Duffy, 1998).

Another area of interest for those starting a service learning program is how to help students select an appropriate site for their service (Knoderer-Cote, 1998). Centralized service learning offices or centers for volunteer placement are very helpful in making effective placements. In assisting students to choose a site, it is important to remember that the students are looking for a meaningful assignment, one that will make a difference. Therefore, the faculty member should have a sense of the community's needs and assess the preferences and tendencies of the student population. Once the site has been selected, an open communication channel with the agency is essential, especially as an avenue to resolve any concerns or problems (Knoderer-Cote, 1998).

Unless mutual goals are established between the professor and the community sites, all parties will be disappointed and the students will become frustrated with the inconsistent expectations (Kleinman & Duffy, 1998). The professors should therefore come to an agreement with the student and the service agency about expected outcomes, ongoing commitment, closure, and evaluation.

Examples of Service Learning Programs

With hundreds of community colleges offering service learning courses, the approaches to creating and offering the programs are varied. The following five examples demonstrate a range of programs presented in the literature under the umbrella of service learning.

At Kapi'olani Community College in Hawaii, a psychology professor offered a service learning option to students in her Theories of Personality course. The professor's goal was "to have students directly and deliberately link back to the different theoretical approaches to the analysis of personality that are being discussed in class at that point" (Renner, 1996, p. 34). Students had to provide at least 20 hours of service. The central reflection assignment was to have the students observe themselves during their volunteer experiences, pick one aspect or feature of personality, and decide how to interpret that aspect in terms of the theoretical approach being discussed in class. Students were evaluated on responsible completion of the service commitment, maintenance of a reflective journal, and an analytical paper that integrates the course material with the service experience. The professor found that "the types of connections they make are typically very appropriate and relevant, although there is much complaining about how difficult it is" (p. 35).

At Hagerstown Junior College in Maryland, the adoption of a service learning curriculum was the result of a community-wide, extensive planning process (Ottenritter & Parsons, 1996). Beginning in 1986, the faculty and staff, along with members of the community, undertook a systematic, comprehensive appraisal of the college. One of the recommendations that emerged from this assessment was that the college should better train students in civic leadership and cultural literacy. In response, the college became a member of a statewide consortium, the focus of which was to infuse civic responsibility into the curriculum. During the summer of 1993 members of a planning team attended a week-long seminar on the topic; by the fall they had put together a recommendation to the faculty to take a service learning approach to increasing civic responsibility among students. Within one year, seven faculty members involved 63 students in service learning projects that totaled almost 900 hours of community service. The following year, the college gave its approval to establish a service learning advisory board, which was to oversee a core team of faculty and student services personnel who would provide "hands-on" management of the program and collect data about the impact of the service learning efforts.

At Pitt Community College (North Carolina), students in the Human Service Education program, which awards degrees to graduates who go on to work in health-related fields, spent more than 500 hours in supervised field placements in a variety of institutional settings. "This strong emphasis on experiential education is in keeping with the standards of the leading professional organizations in the field of human service education, and thus reflects a national, rather than a purely local or institutional commitment to service" (Serow et al., 1996, p. 9). Similarly, at Mesa Community College in Arizona (Conss & Tyler-Higgins, 1996), students in a pre-professional program (early childhood education) were able to transform their field experiences into service learning. One critical part of the program was keeping journal entries, as set forth in a service learning handbook. Students who participated in service learning were excused from two assignments (such as a quiz or written assignment), and their research paper was designed around their service learning placement. The expected outcome was for the students to develop a curriculum that was age appropriate and to create a five-day teaching schedule.

Spokane Community College (Washington) required a service learning and volunteer component for students in its business department (Niblock & Kilgore, 1996). The driving philosophy behind the program was the recognition of one's obligation to give back to the community. All business and management students were required to earn one credit of "approved supervised experience," which required 33 hours of service. Because there was no campus volunteer center, the program was developed by the department with the help of a $3,000 seed grant from Campus Compact. Students had great flexibility in choosing a site. Some chose nonprofit or governmental agencies "because they think the experience will be fun as well as benefiting the community" (Niblock & Kilgore, 1996, p. 12). Others chose sites that would help them make decisions regarding their own future career plans or would give them marketable experience. For some of the students, the service learning experience turned into a paid job. The coordinator found in interviewing members of the business community that many of them liked to see evidence of community service on a resume, and that they regarded volunteer work by employees to be good public relations for their organizations. Program evaluation was still considered a work in progress, with the primary method being an exit interview with the students.

Evaluating Service Learning Programs

Evaluations conducted at individual colleges usually consist of student surveys completed at the end of the semester and usually report moderately positive outcomes for the students. At Miami-Dade Community College, for example, 428 students enrolled in service learning courses were surveyed about their experiences and reported that they gained a positive attitude toward community involvement (75%), a sense of personal achievement (70%), a sense of social responsibility (69%), and a positive attitude toward experiential programs like this one (67%) (Exley, 1996). Another study explored the effects of service learning on students using 286 students enrolled in paired courses (control courses used traditional methods, and the others used a mandatory 20-hour service learning activity). Students self-selected which section of the course (service learning or traditional) in which to enroll. The results indicated that the students in the service learning sections achieved higher final course grades and reported greater satisfaction with the course. In addition, the faculty reported that class discussions were more stimulating and the students seemed more challenged academically (Berson & Younkin, 1998). An evaluation of a joint service learning project conducted by a university and a community college in California found that participation by students and faculty increased over the six semesters of the project. Moreover, 60% of the students reported positive growth in understanding course material, Whereas between 80 and 90% reported positive growth in community responsibility and comfort with other ethnic groups (Bunney-Sarhad, 1992).

RAND conducted a review of the Learn and Serve America Higher Education (LASHE) program, looking at the direct service work performed; the impacts on the students, communities, and the institutions; and the return on the LASHE investment (Gray et al., 1999). A total of 28 colleges and universities, including six community colleges, were evaluated. Overall, the study found that the community organizations were very positive about the contributions of the student volunteers and that the students who participated experienced "some modest positive effects" (Gray et al., 1999, p. xxi). More specifically, the students reported greater gains in civic participation (particularly in their intended future involvement in community service) and life skills (including interpersonal skills and understanding), but did not differ from students who did not participate in service learning in their perceptions of the impact of their course experience on academic or professional skills. Students who reported relatively strong effects of service on their development were more likely than others to report that their course linked the service experience to the content of the course. "These results are generally consistent with other research showing small positive effects of participation in service during college" (Gray et al., 1999, p. xviii).

The results, however, were less clear at community colleges, where students in service learning courses reported that their courses involved more work than other classes but reported no difference in satisfaction levels with these courses compared to other courses. There were also no significant differences found in the outcome variables (academic skills, life skills, professional skills, or civic participation) between students in the two groups. It is important to remember the small number of community colleges (6) included in this survey when interpreting the results.

Discussion and Need for Additional Research

Participation in community service by students has increased steadily throughout the decade, with 74.2% of college freshmen reporting in 1998 that they participated in community service within the last year, compared to 62% in 1989 (Sax, Astin, Korn, & Mahoney, 1998). Service learning programs may account for some increase in the numbers of student volunteers, and part of the growth may be due to the increased national spotlight placed on volunteerism by President Clinton, General Colin Powell, and others. Alternatively, on a more selfish level, some of the increase may be due to the recognition by college students that volunteer work has become an expected item on a resume. Regardless of the role service learning has played in increasing the number of students who volunteer, it is widely accepted that service learning has strong, positive effects on the community it serves. What is somewhat less clear is whether the "modest positive effects" on students reported by the RAND study (Gray et al., 1999) justify the amount of resources and effort being spent on these programs.

Many of the positive outcomes reported by colleges raise questions. First, how does the academic component of service learning add to the insights gained by students who participate in community service as an extracurricular activity? Studies are needed that compare the experiences and learning of students who take service learning courses with those of students who participate in community service as an extracurricular activity. Many student services professionals have received training in student development, and perhaps they would be able to incorporate reflective activities into extracurricular community service programs. This change could foster student learning and development without requiring the investment of faculty effort and classroom time.

Second, what do the course evaluations that compare student outcomes from service learning and traditional courses actually measure, and can the outcomes even be compared? Participation in community service activities often brings an emotional reward that is not present in a traditional class. Thus it is not surprising that the students who participate in community service activities report high levels of satisfaction with these courses. Nor is it surprising students would report higher levels of interest in civic engagement after having just completed a course during which the value of community service in a civic society was discussed extensively. What has not been investigated is the opportunity cost of these classes. The RAND report tells us that most students who take service learning classes report that these courses require more time than other classes. When 20 or more hours are spent on volunteer activities, what is sacrificed? The students are usually excused from other assignments in exchange for community service participation. Do they miss out on some of the subject matter that would otherwise be covered in class?

Third, one of the benefits of service learning most often cited by advocates of the program is an increased interest in civic responsibility and a greater likelihood to predict ongoing involvement with community service in the future. These outcomes have usually been determined by surveys conducted at the conclusion of a course, or shortly thereafter. Although service learning has been available on a widespread level for a relatively short period of time, studies need to be conducted to determine whether the enthusiasm for community service created by participation in a service learning course lasts beyond a semester or the period of college enrollment. These long-term studies should, of course, consider the effect of participation in community service prior to the service learning course or other predispositions toward civic involvement.

An additional topic that is not addressed in the literature is how service learning programs at community colleges differ from those offered at four-year institutions. Although many authors have asserted that the mission of community colleges strongly supports the concept of service learning, little has been written about whether community colleges' unique environments warrant a different approach to service learning. Community college students are older, more ethnically diverse, bring a wider range of life experiences to college, and are more likely to have dependents and outside responsibilities. In addition, they are much more likely to attend college on a part-time basis. What effects do these differences have on the way the programs are structured or the types of volunteer experiences that are offered? How do they affect the likelihood that students will be able to participate in these programs at all? How should the presence of students who may already have extensive volunteer experience (or have been the recipients of community service activities) be incorporated into class discussions?

Another possible problem in measuring the benefits of service learning is that the lines have been blurred between career preparation and service learning. Several of the case studies cited included teacher and allied health career preparation and business internships that explicitly promote the value of this experience in the career search process. Is a student who is preparing to become a teacher performing community service when he or she serves as a teacher's aide? Does an internship that happens to be conducted at a nonprofit agency count as community service? How important is the motivation of the student in determining whether a practicum is community service? Have the internship courses that are now being touted as examples of service learning classes been revamped to include the essential component of reflection, or have they just been renamed?

Finally, does the trend toward including community service or service learning enrollment as a graduation requirement undermine the very idea of volunteerism? There is a potential for students to resent this demand on their time, perhaps with damaging consequences. Student responsibilities at a service learning site include being honest and open at the site, understanding and meeting commitments, respecting confidentiality, and being an advocate for change when appropriate (Pima Community College, 1997). What is the likelihood that a student unwillingly engaged in providing service would take these responsibilities seriously? Furthermore, the positive outcomes attributed to service learning have generally been measured in programs in which the students chose to participate. How would these results change if self-selection were no longer an element of these programs?

Conclusion

Service learning programs have grown dramatically over the last 10 years. It is clear that communities benefit to a substantial extent from the time students spend performing volunteer work, and it seems that, at the least, some modest benefits accrue to the students who participate. Guidance is available for community colleges interested in starting their own program, and descriptions of individual programs abound, but more objective research is needed to evaluate the costs and benefits of these programs.

References

American Association of Community Colleges. (1995). Community colleges and service learning. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 198)

American Association of Community Colleges. (1996, April). Service learning: A community strategy for HIV prevention. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 613)

American Association of Community Colleges. (1998). American Association of Community Colleges: Service learning and community colleges: Building a national network. Final Progress Report -- Grant 94LHB00014. Washington, DC: Author.

Barnett, L. (1996). Service learning: Why community colleges? In M.H. Parsons & C.D. Lisman (Eds.), Promoting community renewal through civic literacy and service learning (pp. 7-15). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 93. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 510)

Berson, J.S. (1994). A marriage made in heaven: Community colleges and service learning. Community College Journal, 64(6), 14-19.

Berson, J.S., & Younkin, W.F. (1998, November). Doing well by doing good: A study of the effects of a service-learning experience on student success. Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Higher Education, Miami, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 568)

Brown, B.L. (1998). Service learning: More than community service. ERIC Digest No. 198, (EDO-CE-98-198). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 640)

Bucco, D. (1995). Building sustainable programs: A guide to developing and maintaining service-learning at community colleges. Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 043)

Bunney-Sarhad, L. (1992). International studies: A transdisciplinary agent for curricular reform. Unpublished manuscript, California State University Modesto. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 779)

Christiansen, L.K. (1994, April). Yesterday it was called civics; today it is service learning. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Community Colleges, Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 380)

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1996). The American community college. (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. (1988). Building communities: A vision for a new century. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Peproduction Service No. ED 307 012)

Conss, L., & Tyler-Higgins, N. (1996, February). Carry the torch for your department into the community. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual International Conference for Community and Technical College Chairs, Deans and other Organizational Leader, Phoenix/Mesa, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 549)

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Exley, R.J. (1996). Commitment to community: Service learning at Miami-Dade Community College. In M.H. Parsons & C.D. Lisman (Eds.), Promoting community renewal through civic literacy and service learning (pp. 35-42). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 93. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 510)

Fay, T., & Glasson, J. (1998, November). Strategies for increasing service-learning capacity at community colleges. In T. Pickeral & K. Peters (Eds.), Three years after: Lessons learned from a service-learning project at community colleges (pp. 29-34). Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges.

Garman, S. (1996, May). Service learning: A summary of a semester. Paper presented at the National Conference of the Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges, Scottsdale, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 890)

Gray, M., & Associates. (1999). Combining service and learning in higher education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 495)

Kleinman, J., & Duffy, D. (1998, November). Connecting service with content. In T. Pickeral & K. Peters (Eds.), Three years after: Lessons learned from a service-learning project at community colleges (pp. 7-13). Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges.

Knoderer-Cote, V. (1998, November). Matching students with service-learning opportunities. In T. Pickeral & K. Peters (Eds.), Three years after: Lessons learned from a service-learning project at community colleges (pp. 15-22). Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges.

McAleavey, S.J. (1996, November). Service-learning: Theory and rationale. In D. Droge (Ed.), Disciplinary pathways to service-learning (pp. 3-10). Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 047)

Niblock, S., & Kiogore, N. (1996, November). Business and management. In D. Droge (Ed.), Disciplinary pathways to service-learning (pp. 11-15). Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 047)

Ottenritter, N., & Parsons, M.H. (1996). In good company: A ten-year odyssey in pursuit of civic purpose. In M.H. Parsons & C.D. Lisman (Eds.), Promoting community renewal through civic literacy and service learning (pp. 61-70). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 93. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 510)

Pickeral, T., & Peters, K. (Eds.). (1996a). Campus community collaborations: Examples and resources for community colleges. Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 045)

Pickeral, T., & Peters, K. (Eds.). (1996b). From the margin to the mainstream: The faculty role in advancing service-learning on community colleges. Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 046)

Pickeral, T., & Peters, K. (Eds.). (1997, November). Tensions inherent in service-learning: Achieving balance. Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges.

Pickeral, T., & Peters, K. (Eds.). (1998, November). Three years after: Lessons learned from a service-learning project at community colleges. Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges.

Pima Community College service-learning handbook, 1996-1997. (1997). Unpublished manuscript, Pima Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 930)

Renner, T. (1996, November). Service-Learning and Psychology. In D. Droge (Ed.), Disciplinary pathways to service-learning (pp. 32-39). Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 047)

Robinson, G. (1999/2000). Stepping into our destiny: Service learning in community colleges. Community College Journal, 70 (3), 8-12.

Robinson, G., & Barnett, L. (1996). Service learning and community colleges: Where we are. (Survey Report AACC-SR-96-1). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 612)

Robinson, G., & Barnett, L. (1998). Best practices in service learning: Building a national community college network, 1994-1997. Project Brief AACC-PB-983. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 422 039)

Sax, L.J., Astin, A.W., Korn, W.S., & Mahoney, K.M. (1998). The American freshman: National norms for fall 1998. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

Serow, R.C., Calleson, D.C., Parker, L.G., & Morgan, L. (1996). Service-learning and the institutional mission of community colleges. Community College Review, 23(4), 3-13.

Service-learning faculty manual. Century Community and Technical College, 1996-1997. (1997). Unpublished manuscript, Century Community and Technical College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 035)

Ward, K. (1996, April). Service-learning and student volunteerism: Reflections on institutional commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 807)

Wozniak, J. (1996, May). Mathematics and science and faculty service learning handbook. Supplemental material distributed at the National Conference of the Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges, Scottsdale, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 930)

Carol A. Kozeracki serves as the assistant director for publications and special projects at the ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, University of California at Los Angeles. [e-mail]