Faculty Success and Satisfaction in Service-Learning.

Introduction

Traditional views of learning have long favored "classroom centered" instruction with little interaction required between student and the host community. The concept of service-learning that has infiltrated diverse academic fields (Zlotkowski, 1997) may challenge this assumption. The status quo also faces disruption from changes in academic instruction due to advances in technology and the need for workers with applied skills. As Rifkin (1997) stated, the American educational system must prepare "students for the marketplace and responsibilities of leadership." He also notes the need for education to take a more active role in preparing students to "meet the needs of families, workers, and neighborhoods," citing the "quiet revolution" in community service that has brought public education into partnership with the third sector. Tracing a ten year trend, he predicts a true paradigm shift, in which scholarship around services becomes widely accepted (Rifkin, 1997).

The histories of university campuses are imbued with consistent messages concerning service toward humanity and the campus' role in the local community and in shaping public policy. Nowhere is this more evident than in the many mission statements that govern institutions of higher learning. Ramaley (1997) notes that such institutions express deep commitment to civility, community, and social responsibility.

The service-learning perspective embraces these principles, but at the same time engages students in experiential activities, often outside the classroom setting, that make learning relevant and highly personal. This perspective involves greater connectivity between students and faculty. The learning experience becomes a partnership in which the faculty share the classroom experience with students and the curriculum is viewed as a set of methodologies for facilitated learning around focused educational goals.

Adoption of service-learning pedagogy is likely to flourish only if the climate of change surrounding education nurtures innovation, if changes in campus culture occur, and if genuine efforts are undertaken by schools to redefine their current missions toward service (e.g., Portland State University) (Ramaley, 1997).

Since faculty play a pivotal role in determining the learning environment, investigation of faculty attitudes toward service-learning is critical. As Pikeral and Peters (1996) note, moving service-learning from the margin to the mainstream requires an effort to "facilitate the successful integration of principles of good service-learning practice into faculty development and the academic community." Poorly implemented service-learning programs fail to capture the essence of the off-site experience; pose greater managerial, evaluative, and instructional challenges, and can be costlier than standard "classroom talk." Despite a growing movement at the K-12 and higher education levels and an increasing involvement of students in their communities, implications for faculty remain under documented. Insufficient data exists on faculty involvement and faculty satisfaction in relations to service-learning. If the service-learning movement hopes to get beyond the fringe and into the heart of campus pedagogical models, such documentation is necessary.

This paper is an attempt to reflect on this spirit of academic volunteerism from the faculty perspective and document its validity. This paper illustrates some of the challenges and opportunities faculty face that may account for the level of satisfaction gained from managing the service-learning environment. Through the first-person accounts of several faculty members, it will be shown that on one campus, faculty agree that the impact which the service has for the instructional team is profound and its potential for campus and community is inherently important. Since faculty satisfaction from service-learning is currently the least explored component in the history of the current volunteer and community service movement, this paper focuses on an adapted model to analyze the impacts on faculty participants involved in service-learning. This model helps to delineate four outcomes for faculty who receive some of the same benefits from their involvement in service-learning as their students, including academic, civic, career, and personal implications.

Methodology

Over the course of the past two years, in the process to conduct an internal departmental audit and self-study, efforts were undertaken by student and faculty to document the reflective perspective of academic volunteerism. What became apparent as the review commenced was that the collected materials posed a rich context to help illustrate a depth of information which was part of the scope of work for the faculty and helped illustrate both the challenges and opportunities related to management of a service-learning environment as well as the rewarding outcome faculty achieve from these experiences.

A host of methods were selected to gather material and data, including review of discussions with faculty at meetings, reflection, content analysis of papers, letters, evaluations, class materials, letters of reference and support, as well as a qualitative review of material. The process utilized to survey material and review documents was initially designed to help only the department evaluate its success, document issues of concern, and address future planning. It has evolved into a meaningful collection of redefined roles, better understanding of obstacles, fresh insight into opportunities, and greater awareness of the benefits of the service-learning pedagogy.

Faculty Roles in Service-Learning Instruction and Design

Faculty are the key to long-term establishment and success of public service and meaningful learning in the community and the "nucleus" who sustain a consistency about student learning (Kendall, 1990). This group remains at the cutting edge of the movement and have important characteristics that help advance an innovative style of teaching. Kendall suggests that such faculty members possess the following characteristics:

* Intellectually alert

* Personally curious about questions and issues

* Take pride in stretching the parameters of their discipline

* Willing to fly in the face of conventional wisdom about what constitutes scholarship

Similarly, data collection on the GW experience has articulated a similar set of values inherent in the individuals responsible for service-learning design. They have repeatedly commented on the sense of dedication and commitment which they must possess, going so far as to articulate it as part of the calling which makes their work so rewarding. Moving beyond a traditional work relationship, these faculty indicate a high level of personal investment in not only their level of scholarship, but also their attention to students, the care with which they advise participants, and the strong base of relationship-building they work to create with site staff. Finally, the efforts of faculty indicate a sense of concern not only over their performance but over the commitments which their students make to clients and the community.

Obstacles for Faculty Involved with Service-Learning

To fully understand the challenges service-learning faces, it is important to anticipate and account for the obstacles and opportunities that faculty members face in the implementation of this new pedagogy. Despite positive factors associated with taking on an innovative methodology of instruction like service-learning, obstacles exist for faculty when creating and nurturing any pedagogy or academic environment. As Driscoll (1996) notes, "the process of reflection is difficult (sic) to facilitate. We are learners ourselves when it comes to reflection, because many faculty are unfamiliar with that process as a form of pedagogy." Similarly, in a recent study conducted by Bringle, Hatcher, and Games (1997) "twenty percent of faculty felt service-learning should be an asset in promotion and tenure and (sic) the lack of time and lack of institutional recognition for service-learning as a scholarly activity were cited as obstacles"

Generally, Hammond (1994) found that there were significant differences with regard to faculty motivation for using service-learning. Overall faculty involved in service-learning were less satisfied with the interface between service and their scholarly pursuits, the greater time and task requirement of service ventures, having to adjust to differing levels of student-readiness, and the challenges of evaluating student work. Zlotkowski (1997), an expert who has widely spoken about the institutional role and the value of service, notes that faculty are forced to decide between the conflicting demands of publishable research, undergraduate teaching, and service.

In a similar assessment of the GW experience, these factors are just a portion of the challenges which faculty face. In a recent list expanded upon by faculty at GW, several more complex issues were raised. Generally the list of challenges GW faculty noted include:

* A match between student capability and site expectation can be difficult to obtain. Service-learning is labor intensive. Adequate personnel and support services are essential in the placement process.

* Management of students poses challenges, especially as they transition from sites at holidays or at the close of a semester.

* A lack of control for the placement office, faculty and student, in the quality management of the experience may occur.

* Students tend to experience role conflict in the disparity between functional attributes of student, professional, and volunteer.

* Objective measurement and evaluation of students' experiential learning is difficult.

* Performance appraisals from different site supervisors tend to show variance.

* Rewards and motivation of site supervisors differ.

* Service can be disconnected and refer to "doing good" without the academic/scholarship aspect.

* Service-learning can become disembodied from the academic curriculum, especially if it is not integrated into the course content.

* Curriculum development and classroom teaching become more labor intensive.

* Communication problems can arise between site supervisors and program faculty.

* Issues of legal liability, student expense, and travel time are encountered.

* Students tend to be homogeneous.

* Changes in promotion, tenure and contract renewal need to be re-examined.

* Criticism exists about lack of concentration in academic work.

* Inexperience exists in leading reflections discussions.

Opportunities for Faculty Involved with Service-Learning

Despite some obstacles for faculty, there are still many positive outcomes from the service-learning environment. There are a great number of intrinsic rewards and meaningful opportunities which faculty derive from the experience of modeling a service-learning environment. Hammond (1994) found a relationship between the initial motivation to incorporate service-learning and subsequent satisfaction with such an endeavor. Also, faculty in service-learning tend to be driven more by curricular concerns than by personal or co-curricular issues. Faculty derive satisfaction from their academic freedom to choose service-learning, from their sense of meaning and purpose associated with their efforts, and from the positive feedback they receive from students and colleagues (Hammond, 1994).

Most faculty simply need basic instruction in the design of how to manage a service-learning course before they will attempt to frame a curriculum or develop a syllabus for a semester. In the work of Stanton (1991), "faculty will design, develop, and teach service-learning courses if they have intrinsic motivation to become acquainted with or deepen their knowledge or skill related to service-learning pedagogy." In their work, faculty need three things for success, including:

* Having a specific goal related to service-learning curriculum design.

* Participating in an intense interactive seminar in which they gain an understanding of relevant learning theory.

* Perceiving that their institution places a value on teaching generally and on student service connections specifically.

Notable Outcomes of Faculty Involvement in Service-Learning

Zlotkowski further notes that service-learning links teaching directly to outreach activities, therefore providing opportunities for what Boyer (1996) called the scholarship of application, integration, and teaching. Service-learning creates significant institutional or interdisciplinary service in the form of academic-sponsored community assistance (Zlotkowski, 1997) to communities in need The ideal university setting is one which has the support of faculty and administration, a process for facilitated student placement in the community, and formal efforts to help students understand the academic or civic or community relevance (Pickeral and Peters, 1994). Based on these factors, many faculty cite the increasingly positive rewards they gain in the class and with their students if they pursue a service-learning class. In a similar list of opportunities compiled by GW faculty involved in service-learning, many rewards were noted, including:

* Students co-teach, helping to lead classes through presentations and varied styles of instruction.

* An opportunity to learn is fostered. Sociologically organizational and individual issues are explored, aspects of the instruction are virtual and timely.

* Both direct and indirect service opportunities are stimulated, easing the comfort level various students encounter in the field work experience.

* Faculty are able to link the appropriate research to service environments.

* Funding opportunities are broadened.

* The nature of complex community work is interdisciplinary, adding to the breadth of enjoyment in a liberal arts' community of scholarship found at many institutions.

* Job satisfaction and the ability to work in an area where one has both passion and commitment, or where personal beliefs are raised.

* Anecdotal records, logs, and field documentation help faculty and students understand the community at both a deeper academic and emotional level.

* Students tend to be homogeneous, both a positive and a negative aspect.

* Relationships are enhanced between student and faculty member, assisting in the advising of students for future courses.

* Faculty are energized since work is done in a new manner between the community and the student.

* A theme-based curriculum expands around real life issues.

* Opportunities exist to gain active community allies as well as increased funding.

* Students test relevancy of class work to real-life situations. Fosters a powerful learning tool.

* The mode of instruction advances critical thinking and is solution-oriented.

* Professional visibility for institution or faculty is enhanced.

A Model of Primary Analysis, Service-Learning Satisfaction

Firsthand accounts from colleagues naturally indicate that there is significant satisfaction for those faculty who teach service-learning courses, despite the challenges of implementation. There are a number of ways to categorize the impact and outcomes of service. At the campus level these include widely documented models exploring impacts on students, community and institution (Delve, Mintz, & Stewart, 1990; Eyler & Giles 1996; RAND, 1996). Few address faculty. At GW University, through work with student volunteers, Konwerski (1997) developed a model to analyze the impacts of service on student participants involved in service-learning. This has been adopted for faculty in much the same manner. Faculty satisfaction from service-learning is currently the least explored component in the volunteer and community service movement. The delineation of four outcomes from service-learning connect well with faculty who often receive some of the same benefits from their involvement as students. The four factors which impact faculty include academic, civic, career, and personal implications, and these serve to help the faculty member guide service-learning activity.

Academic Factors which Guide Service Learning Activity

In a widely distributed set of monographs, Zlotkowski and the American Association of Higher Education focused on discipline-specific effects of service on the link between curricular success and student achievement. For there to be faculty participation, there must be clear, strong, and consistent links between the learning community and the participants' success in integrating academic learning, course goals, particular skills, traits, or competencies.

In managing a service-learning project Pickeral and Peters (1994) note "faculty respond to other faculty, regard peers as more authentic, and appreciative (sic) of struggling integration of service-learning into the academic curriculum." Further, they note it is "helpful for colleagues to visit or to encourage the development of activities that integrate service-learning into their courses." Faculty are likely to integrate service-learning if they feel an affinity with other faculty. Senior or tenured faculty should be called upon to mentor other faculty.

With regard to faculty involvement in service-learning, it is important for the faculty to feel that the involvement they make has tangible linkage to their discipline and that it helps to truly advance the work they are designing in the class with greater understanding or skills developed outside of the classroom or lab. Furthermore, the ability for faculty to actually link their own research agenda and evaluation interests into the study they put forth for their students is an important aspect. This type of academic program (Schwiebel, 1998) combines professional development for faculty, with their research agenda, and further advances a tested curriculum beyond the mere evaluation of objectives to an active process of measurement, data collection, and analysis. Gaining research opportunities, winning grants, and collaborating with colleagues across discipline streams is an important value inherent in a cross disciplinary, off-campus program like service-learning.

Faculty also strive to prepare students with innovative curricular activities which adapt to changing social issues or situations, like recent advances in welfare reform or other changes in social programs. As P. Konwerski (personal communication, March 15, 1998) notes in a letter to his chair, "We have worked closely with the students, year-to-year, to make sure that the courses meet their needs, help them develop new skills, and advance relevant trends which they should be prepared for in the field." This ability to combine and balance theory and practice forces faculty to constantly evaluate to improve the content and delivery of this dynamic instructional model known as service-learning.

At the core of service-learning, students must begin to develop greater skills. Through the expertise of faculty leading service-learning programs, the curriculum must help students develop better skills; process information more constructively; think critically; and evaluate, measure, and collect data. In addition, effective programs help students communicate, experience problem-solving firsthand, appreciate diversity, understand social problems, and apply answers to their questions. In the same manner, adjunct instructor L. Smith (personal communication, March 12, 1998) comments "There is much care taken by the faculty to ensure a well-grounded, yet theoretically based experience".

Civic Factors which Guide Service Learning Activity

The second piece of the model of faculty investment in service relies upon the connection that service has to the civic outcomes of community work for both the campus and the instructor. The fact that community work helps the scholar connect to, learn from, and give back to the community cannot be overlooked. As Conrad and Hedin cite, service connects to real-life experience where those involved gain a perspective of actual community resources (1991).

In the words of adjunct instructor R. Jones (personal communication, March 23, 1998), teaching students in a GW service-learning course "has been my most noted professional experience in the past few years. The students have a remarkably developed sense of community and desire to assist the less fortunate. I have seen, on many occasions, students give up personal interests to pursue their community interests. They have always taken their abundantly developed social consciousness seriously."

Students and faculty who participate in service-learning can do so at a level of comfort which is appropriate. Some people are able to participate in more direct service while those less comfortable with being involved directly can participate and learn from indirect service work which is still an essential part of the human service spectrum. Service is about making a difference; both ends of the continuum contribute to the success of an organization, person, or community. Each effects change on-site which is positive for the participant and the organization. From an institutional approach, D. Ismond (personal communication, March 23, 1998) notes, "In teaching, my objective is to provide students with the type of comprehensive, multidisciplinary background necessary for the design, implementation, administration, and evaluation of programs that focus on human needs and effective service delivery. At the same time it is essential to provide students with an understanding of the complex economic and political factors influencing public policy." Here she articulates how the faculty is crucial in making students appreciate the connection between their campus scholarship and civic involvement.

Career Factors which Guide Service Learning Activity

Thirdly, the work of community service-learning relies on the career expertise and knowledge that the educator brings to the experience. Through leadership skills and personal abilities as a professional teacher, researcher, and scholar, the faculty member is able to make better connections, help lead and advise programs, model behavior, and advance the goals of the program beyond the campus to include a community perspective. The students also have an opportunity to grasp the variety of career roles and tasks which they will inevitably encounter as members of the community. From recent data (Konwerski, 1997), there is evidence that having this level of contact is especially important as it helps students identify, experiment, or sample particular professions with which they previously would have had only limited contact. Another service-learning outcome for faculty is that educators have begun to gain a broader view of social, political, or other human service issues beyond the world of higher education. Opening up courses to community issues tends to reveal the practical concerns of those who work in the third sector (Rifkin, 1998). Faculty in the service-learning model also must develop and expand their own skills in leadership and management, making connections between theory and practice, creating innovative evaluations and measurements of learning, and fostering different modes of communication between students, organizations, and the campus. GW's M.A. Saunders (personal communication, March 20, 1998) cites, "The service- learning program is preparation for not only competent, caring human service practitioners, they are (sic) also excellent preparation for any individual with an objective to live a fulfilling, self-actualized life." Moreover, "while responsible for a rigorous theoretical content, the students must also participate in the application of these theories to the realities of their field sites."

For the career development of our students, we in higher education must set expectations that "the work is dynamic, important, and critical to our complex society. We are training some of the best and brightest students to be leaders in the field and know that the academic preparation we provide is significant in their ability to excel in the field "(P. Konwerski, personal communication, March 15, 1998)." At times, community service also is a joint activity in which there is a better connection to "human academics." Faculty who are involved can help students interpret their commitment to fight for social justice or create better models of community development. The unique blend of contact which is established between community members and members of academia is unique (Stanton, 1994).

At GW, analysis of course evaluations for four years (1996-1999) indicates that students repeatedly noted career competence of faculty, citing them as well informed, able to relate theories to practical applications, providing texts to promote understanding, and organizing and matching content with learners. Likewise, students noted that faculty stimulated and facilitated participation and discussion, conveyed an interest in the subject, and exhibited an enjoyment of teaching. As a professional human service practitioner, D. Ismond (personal communication, March 15, 1998) notes,

   The students are bright, motivated, and sincere individuals, which makes
   classes rewarding and enjoyable. We have had numerous thoughtful
   discussions of human service issues based on their own involvement in
   community outreach projects. Their enthusiasm and energy has been truly
   inspiring. It is this type of spirit--of compassion, excellence, and
   dedication--that is needed as we address the new century and the complex
   problems of post-industrial society.

Personal Factors which Guide Service Learning Activity

To skillfully create linkages and advance scholarship, faculty must rely on the exchange between students and count on communities to provide a context for knowledge to develop. The model is inherently one of partnership, where control of the classroom remains in the hands of the faculty, but participation is shared with students. Whereas one model was initially hierarchical, the service-learning model depends on the interchange between teacher and student which is based more on equality and reciprocity. This is a characteristic shift in the typical instructional pattern, because it must call upon the teacher to have a level of confidence and trust which is both mature and competent to accept this different shift in instructional philosophy. The team-based nature of the model also calls upon the faculty member to understand team and interpersonal dynamics and help consistently shape the dialogue.

Beyond this, faculty will begin to develop a sense of empathic skills, expand their listening ability, and need to have a sense of balance and perspective for the difficulty and challenging work that is involved with service. In the pedagogy, faculty have an inherent emphasis to work more closely with students, share in their reflections, and participate at a deeper, more intimate level. This may be different, present new challenges, or even feel awkward, but it is the nature of service work and the part of academic life which makes service-learning more different and at times more difficult than other instructional strategies. In D. Ismond's (personal communication, March 23, 1998) words,

   I have tried to emphasize the unique contribution of our field, which is
   the recognition of the human issues that drive the need for services--the
   spiritual, psychological, cultural, and ecological as well as the physical
   needs. Because these aspects of human need are often revealed in their
   darker forms--example, substance abuse, mental illness, violence, poverty,
   disease, pollution, homelessness--it is essential that we also work to
   address both the causes and symptoms. This type of thinking requires a
   world view that accepts the paradox and acknowledges our diversity,
   interdependence, and individual responsibility. For this reason, work in
   the human services sector is not just a profession, it is a calling, and as
   such, requires ongoing exploration of our own development and growth. I am
   privileged to have been part of this calling for the past 20 years and am
   committed to contribute what I can to the human services program, our
   students, and the GW community.

Conclusion

Content analysis of exit interviews from students who graduated from the Human Services Program in the last two academic years (1997-1998, and 1998-1999) indicated how courses changed program participants knowledge and skills; enhanced their awareness of human service issues; increased their empathy for peoples' needs; and improved their communication, helping skills, and appreciation of diversity and unique client populations. Noting particular program strengths, students cite field work requirements and reflections; seminar courses which require regular, active participation; and the professional and academic experiences faculty bring to the program.

In application, service-learning is not any simpler than traditional classroom approaches. In fact, if done effectively, service-learning can involve an even greater time commitment from faculty. However, the application of theory and practices has been shown to be rewarding for all those involved. Although there are positive and negative aspects of taking on the challenge of implementing a new pedagogy, some of the critical components of the application of this teaching philosophy include the fact that it is an innovative paradigm designed to be collaborative between student, scholar, and community. For faculty, the level of job satisfaction, connectivity among students, and movement from theory to application help make the philosophy behind service-learning difficult to ignore, given all of the highly positive, often intangible outcomes instructors gain through its application. Despite all of the work required to design and implement a service-learning curriculum, the outcome is that students learn better, understand more, and succeed in their academic pursuits as a result of their community commitments. Students find that they are more likely to be excited about classes, more committed to their own work and scholarship--both of which are proven successful when modeled by the instructor (Williams and Driscoll, 1997). In the end, we have accomplished our task and achieved our goals if we, too, have learned from our teaching, research, and service-learning.

References

Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1. 11-20.

Bringle, R., Hatcher, J., & Games, R. (1997). Engaging and supporting faculty in service learning. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2. 43-51.

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1991, June). School based community service: What we know from research and theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 743-749.

Driscoll, A., Messer, B., Goucher, C., & Svoboda, M. (1996). Insights about reflection: Lessons from faculty and students. Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning 1. 42-43.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1996). The impact of service-learning program characteristics on student outcomes. Summary of selected results from the FIPSE comparing models of service-learning research projects. Snowbird, UT. National Society of Experiential Education Conference.

Delve, C., Mintz, S., & Stewart, G. (1990). Community service as values education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Hammond, C. (1994). Integrating service and academic studies: Faculty motivation and satisfaction in Michigan Higher Education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21. 1-8.

Kendall, J. (Ed.) (1990). Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service. Raleigh, NC: National Society of Internships and Experiential Education.

Konwerski, P. (1997). Exploring impact on student participants through campus community service in higher education. Washington, DC.

Pickeral, T., & Peters, K. (1996). 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.

RAND, (1996). Evaluation of learn and serve America, higher education: First year report. Los Angeles, CA: RAND Institute on Education and Training.

Ramaley, J. (1997). Shared consequences: Recent experiences with outreach and community-based learning. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2. 19-25.

Rifkin, J. (1997). A "civil" education for the 21st century: Preparing students for a three- sector society. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2. 14-18.

Schwiebel, A., Kaswan, I., Sills, G., & Hackel, A. (1998). University extension in urban neighborhoods: A new approach. Journal of Higher Education, 47. 205-215.

Stanton, T. (1991). Liberal arts: Experimental learning and public service: Necessary ingredients for socially responsible undergraduate education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 27.2.

Williams, D. & Driscoll, A. (1997). Connecting curriculum content with community service: Guidelines for facilitating student reflection. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2. 33-42.

Zlotkowski, E. (1997). Service learning and the process of academic renewal. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2. 80-87.

Dr. Peter Konwerski is Executive Director of the Cloyd Heck Marvin Center and Student Activities. Professor Honey Nashman is Program Director for the Human Services Program. Deborah Ismond is an adjunct Professor in the Human Services Program. Amiko Matsumoto is Director of the Office of Community Service. Currently she is the Chair of the Standing Committee for Multicultural Affairs with the American College Personnel.

Peter Konwerski, The George Washington University
Honey Nashman, The George Washington University
Deborah Ismond, The George Washington University
Amiko Matsumoto, The George Washington University