Capstone Thesis

Running head: EXPLORING SERVICE-LEARNING 1

Capstone Literature Review

Reshaping Policy And Foundational Approaches For Service-learning in Higher Education

Nate Doolin

University of Wisconsin – Madison

Author Note

This paper was prepared for ELPA 777: Higher and Postsecondary Education Capstone Seminar taught by Hyekyung Lee.

EXPLORING SERVICE-LEARNING 2

Table of Contents

Title page ……………………………………………………………………………..page 1

Abstract/Introduction ………………………………………………………………....pages 2-9

Methods ………………………………………………………………………………pages 9-11

Literature Review …………………………………………………………………….pages 11-36

Discussion …………………………………………………………………………….pages 37-41

References …………………………………………………………………………….pages 42-54

Hye Kyung Lee, 04/29/15,

There should be a category of Table of Contents and page number.


Pages might be adjusted.Confirm the page number.


Pages might be adjusted. Confirm the page number.


I’d suggest you separate Abstract and Introduction and revise the page number.


Abstract

The literature review offers a thorough explanation of service-learning as a collegiate

pedagogy and provides suggestions for its continual success in the core curriculum. The paper

more specifically reviews service-learning in the following areas: (a) historical overview of

service-learning (b) student development, (c) faculty involvement, and (d) institutionalism.

Service-learning was found to have negative effects on student development and community

members, but positive effects were found to highly outweigh them. Findings suggest universities

need to do a better job of compensating faculty members who facilitate service-learning courses

as well as explore effective ways of offering service-learning across different majors in the core

curriculum. More attention is suggested to be given to long-term service-learning planning.

Long-term planning may be effective if both administrative personnel and faculty are involved in

the process. The creation of several committees and evaluation of endowment allocations are

also discussed as possible areas to improve service-learning offerings. A review of the literature

also found faculty members and administrators need to explore better ways to incorporate social

justice and diversity into the curriculum of service-learning.


Clear Abstract. I moved down the Introduction to the new page.


Introduction

Within the last few decades, service-learning in higher education has progressively

emerged as an area of interest among many universities and has rose to the forefront of

discussion for implementing new experimental learning approaches into the collegiate

curriculum. Institutions of higher education continue to struggle with enacting programs to carry

out the traditional historical mission statement of civic responsibly, while also developing ever-

changing initiatives to solve present day need, benefiting both the student and the community

(Kahne & Westheimer, 1996; Kezar & Rhoads, 2001). Service-learning remains as a vastly

understudied area of academia and carries an abundance of uncertainty. Post-secondary

institutions hold a long history of attempting to properly assert or distinguish meaningful and

stable service-learning pedagogies as a key component into their academic core (Cone & Harris,

1996; Furco, 1996; Howard, 2001; Mabry, 1998; Mendel‐Reyes, 1998; Parker-Gwin & Mabry,

1998). More specifically, universities struggle with creating long-term strategic planning for

service-learning initiatives and, in most cases, fail to completely assess the resources or support

needed for a successful integration into its curriculum (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Compact, 2000;

Driscoll, 2000).

The Association of American Colleges and Universities, American Council on Education

and the American Association for Higher Education nevertheless continue to bring awareness for

the importance of service-learning opportunities even as universities grapple with its

implementation (Applegate & Morreale, 1999; Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Saltmarsh, 2005).

Furthermore, researchers continue to identify solutions and explore how service in the

community affects a student’s ability to connect coursework to civic enrichment opportunities


and their growth through psychosocial or cognitive structure development processes (Astin &

Sax, 1998; Cruz & Giles, 2000; Gray, Ondaatje & Zakaras, 1999; Morgan & Streb, 2001).

Service learning is defined in a multitude of ways and its purpose varies across many

literary works (Forsyth, Lu & McGirr, 2000; Furco, 1996; Seifer, 1998; Speck & Hoppe, 2004).

The lack of a clear and concentrated definition of service-learning has further led to the

confusion of its mission while multiple interpretations have classified this area of academia topic

as experimental or an untrusted means of education by many (Butin, 2006; Furco, 1996; Morton,

1995; Weigert, 1998). For the purpose of this paper the strongest identified definition of service

learning is stated as,

"a method under which students or participants learn and develop through active

participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences that is conducted in

institutions of higher education and meets the needs of a community … helps foster civic

responsibility; and is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the

students … and provides structured time for the students to reflect on the service

experience" (Corporation for National and Community Service, 1990, p. 13).

Research conducted on the topic of service-learning has been stated to both support and

dismiss the value of its expected offerings for shaping effective or meaningful student

development on college campuses (Bringle & Kremer, 1993; Compact, 2000; Eby,1998; Eyler &

Giles, 1997). Weigert (2002) acknowledges problems persists with how to properly measure

success, handle students who falsify work, monitor student’s progress and evaluate the confusion

faculty members have by trying to lay out a plan. Service-learning has been shown to bring

negative effects for both students and the community based on a faculty member’s lack of

awareness to connect with the cultural values within the community, while also failing to steer


clear of a non-biased political presence with their work (Compact, 2000; Kahne & Westheimer,

1996). Service-learning has additionally been detrimental to community-based organizations and

to a student’s development process due to institutions’ lack of support for students, resulting in a

decline of commitment, understanding and continuing interest once enrolled in the course

(Blouin & Perry, 2009; Eby, 1998).

Even with the presence of negative outcomes for service learning, numerous positive

outcomes for the student also exists from service-learning which include: emotional satisfaction

and passion for academic pursuits that comes from service, creative relationship development

with the community and the opportunity to be a part of hands-on innovation and groundbreaking

work (Weigert, 2002). Students who participate in service-learning programs also display

growth and a better understanding of self-authorship, social justice, awareness of diversity

issues, increases in academic understanding, elevation of critical thinking skills and the ability to

identify communal need when giving purpose to a chosen area of study (Baldwin, Buchanan &

Rudisill, 2007; Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Jones & Abes, 2004; Morgan & Streb, 2001).

While service-learning has benefited students in diverse ways, problems pertaining to

research, policies and practices still exist. Service-learning has been vastly understudied in

relation to how it contributes to linking students holistically as post-graduate citizens and

advancing past attempts to meet temporary experimental academic pursuits within community

service (Butin, 2010). More specifically, service-learning on most college campuses has failed

to produce long-term approaches to its meaning as an agent to the community (Boud &

Falchikov, 2005). Literature has suggested a need to better define and explore more creative

avenues of implementing service-learning within the collegiate curriculum through the domain

of teaching and learning by faculty, practitioners and administrators. Throughout the findings of


several literary works, a lack of consistency is present of how to better challenge and support

faculty and students in this area.

Historically, service-learning has lacked a consist identity in the academy (Butin, 2006;

Furco, 1996). For years universities have experimented with their own service-learning

practices, but have failed to collaborate with a national movement or effective approach to grow

service-learning consistently in a wider array of majors across campus. Service-learning has

evolved tremendously over the years and at times so fast a large uncertainty of its purpose has

lingered. During the 1960’s service-learning was used as an “anti-educational” social movement

to test out the effectiveness of traditional classroom in a way that could almost be viewed as an

experimental revolt to core academic principles (Lounsbury & Pollack, 2001). Since the

experimental learning concepts of elevating learning outside of the classroom began to take

shape in the 1980’s, a direction of social justice began to take shape rather than viewing service-

learning as solely charity work one does outside of their academic commitments (Lounsbury &

Pollack, 2001). Mission statements have outlined the terms citizenship and service as a central

component of its offering, but collectively, universities have consistently failed to fully

incorporate these founding principles into its true academic identity beyond campus boundaries

(Weigert, 1998). Based on the literature, service-learning is still seen to be in an experimental

state and holds as a fairly new concept in student learning.

This paper aims to investigate how the service-learning curriculum, along with its overall

offerings, can be better structured or implemented in postsecondary academia as a way to avoid

negative outcomes and provide more positive occurrences for all parties involved. The paper will

also compare and contrasts the positive and negative perceptions of service-learning. The

literature review will bridge the gap between properly understanding the mission of the terms


“service” (for the community) and “learning” (classroom knowledge) in academic efforts on

college campuses, giving a more detailed explanation of its full integration of offerings to the

student. Trends involving potential student outcomes and university service-learning

contributions will be brought to light in order to help bring a stronger awareness to increase more

advanced service-learning opportunities campus-wide. These service-opportunities will closely

examine the following: (a) establishing community partnerships that align to the university

values, (b) reviewing faculty perceptions of support and resources, (c) reviewing offerings and

motivation for students and (d) expanding service-learning into a university’s core foundation of

strategic planning moving forward.

This paper also seeks to analyze information on the topics mentioned above in order to

establish better policy strategies for service-learning. These policy strategies will give

suggestions on to how to better serve students when thinking critically of how their area of study

gives a stronger sense of purpose to the world. By doing so, student will be able to better

transition into careers in which they are passionate about as well as to be able to bring more

innovative thoughts into the community based on their previous experience. The policy analysis

discussed at the end of the paper will also give suggestions for faculty members on how to better

create service-learning programs. The policy suggestions will also be critical of how universities

should be involved with service-learning, giving advice on how to provide resources and

support. The overall goal of this paper is to introduce new approaches to service-learning that

universities can use in order to be successful with this area of academia based on the collective

findings outlined in the literature review search.

The significance of this literature review is to develop an overall understanding of

service-learning methods so attempts of implementing new strategies are better planned in order


to help the student, faculty and administration understand the overall mission. Additionally this

paper will attempt to formulate more collective ideas on how to better assess service-learning for

student growth and faculty direction. Additionally, the objective is to help universities establish

more long-term planning with service learning opposed to accomplishing semester or annual

goals. This paper will be organized into three main areas: student development, faculty/staff

involvement and institutionalism.

These three areas of interest will attempt to answer the following research questions

posed: (a) what effects or contributions does a service-learning experience have on or add to a

student’s holistic development at a four-year post-secondary institution? (b) how can universities

improve or develop better approaches in the teaching/learning curriculum and resources offered

to service-learning initiatives and (c) how can universities collectively establish a more

structured outlook for service-learning planning and encourage more effective collaboration?

Methods

The University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries online collection browser and online

article databases were primarily used in the gathering of sources. The Google Scholar search

engine, EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier, Sprinerlink Series and several course books were

also selected as places where sources were collected. Some of the popular journals consisted of

digitalcommons.unomaha.edu, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning and the

Journal of College Student Development. Robert Bringle, Julie Hatcher, Janet Eyler, and Dwight

Giles are a few of the more notable leading researchers in this area of interest, producing several

literary works which have given suggestion for improvement in service learning. Over 115

articles were viewed using the following keywords and phrases: service-learning, higher

education, civic engagement, university mission, faculty support, student motivation, learning


outcomes, curriculum development, off campus initiatives, academic community partnerships,

and policy analysis. These key words were selected as a way to further narrow down my area of

focus surrounding service-learning. Along with searching the term service-learning, I have

identified the following keywords as areas of interest in my review which will help direct me to

develop sound subtopics. By starting with broader wording, I am able to better condense and

build off of more important areas of concern found in the literature rather than missing out on

research that may have gone unnoticed had I began with a more specific search. Paired with

service-learning, these keywords gave me a greater opportunity to define and explore a wide

array of authors.

The direction I took with my methods was to funnel down ideas into more specific areas

of concern in order to identify areas of need where new policy can be created. Additionally, I

was able to synthesize ideas from broader areas which later helped me identify reoccurring

themes to explore for my subtopics that branched off of my more generic terms. Upon reviewing

the literature works, articles were later arranged into three main areas of interest; student

development, faculty involvement and institutionalism. Following my funnel down approach,

these three main areas of interest reoccurred as concerns for future studies among the authors in

the discussion portion of the peer-reviewed articles. Student development was arranged into

subcategories including: Kolb’s learning model, motivation/purpose and service learning by

major. Faculty involvement consisted of: motivation/incentives, resources, curriculum and

establishing partnerships. Finally, institutionalism was arranged into subcategories including:

provided support, funding and long-term planning.

Kolb’s learning model was identified in several articles as a foundational model for

service-learning and I felt this approach served as a respectable representation of how student


affair professionals can evaluate student-learning outcomes. I found this model as a way for me

to branch off new ideas and give a more in-depth look at how service-learning should be

perceived. The model aligns well with the array of definitions for service-learning that are

supported by the authors in the literature review.

Key points found from scholarly works were then synthesized together within the

subcategories to create supporting notions for each point. Following a thorough synthesis, main

areas were compared and contrasted in relation to how each fit into each sub section. The main

findings from the literature review were later cited in the discussion. These main findings served

as supporting material which helped develop new policy and best practices for service-learning

initiatives on a college campus. The policy development was supported by the findings in the

literature review.

Literature Review

I will arrange the review into four sections which include: (a) overview of service-

learning (b) student development, (c) faculty involvement, and (d) institutionalism. The overview

portion of service-learning will deliver a more in-depth review of the founding principles I have

located within the literature and include objectives of service-learning to further develop a better

understanding for its place on a college campus. The student development section will compare

and contrast both positive and negative effects service-learning can bring to a student. I will then

move into the student development section and will introduce Kolb’s learning model, evaluate

student motivation/purpose and explore how service-learning differs across a spectrum of

academic majors. I will then cover topics surrounding faculty involvement. In this section I will

discuss incentives/motivation, curriculum design and establishing community partnerships.

Finally, the literature will look into a larger frame of how service-learning is portrayed on a


university level in the institutionalism section. I will split the institutionalism portion into

sections which will focus on the following: (a) why administrators should care about service-

learning (b) provided support, (c) funding and (d) examining long-term planning. Finally, I will

finalize the literature review within the discussion portion. The discussion portion will the follow

the literature review giving a summary of the key points, give a personal narrative of my service-

learning experience and introduce new policy strategies based on the findings from the literature

review.

Service-Learning Core Values and Objectives

American philosopher and psychologist, John Dewey, has been coined the pioneer of the

present-day service-learning pursuits, first introducing new learning methods outside of

traditional classroom instruction as far back as the late 1890’s (Giles & Eyler, 1994; Harkavy &

Benson, 1998; Saltmarsh, 2005). In a reproduction of one of his earlier works (produced by

Simon and Schuster Publishing) Dewey is famously quoted on his thoughts for traditional

academic settings with the following,

“Experience and experiment are not self-explanatory ideas. Rather, their

meaning is part of the problem to be explored … The belief that all genuine education comes

through experience does not mean all experiences are equally educative. Experience and

education cannot be directly equated to each other … How many students, for example, were

rendered callous to ideas, and how many lost the impetus to learn because of the way in which

learning was experienced to them” (Dewey, 2007).

Dewey’s remarks here state students should have the opportunity to make they own

experiences through their experimentation, rather than being limited to the confines of one


educator. Dewey additional brought forth thoughts on moral reasoning for service-learning,

stating this type of learning is extremely unique in the sense it allows students to integrate both

cognitive and affective thinking simultaneously (You & Rud, 2010). Dewey additionally argued

learning should be active so individuals can make sense of their own education experience

through physical and emotional processes where one can take a personal investment into their

learning rather than being limited to trying to conjure imagination for change in a traditional

academic setting (Rocheleau, 2004). Dewey never denounced traditional classroom setting, but

merely saw service-learning as an extension of what classes on campuses offer.

According to the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (2011), “service learning can

be defined as a research-based teaching method where guided or classroom learning is applied

through action that addresses authentic community need in a process that allows for youth

initiative and provides structured time for reflection on the service experience and demonstration

of acquired skills and knowledge,” (p. 9). Collectively, service-learning can also be defined as a

faculty-supported course developed to challenge a student’s on-going cognitive and psychosocial

abilities through interaction with community partners; students are required to analyze, apply and

reflect upon self-identified solutions to practical social concerns which falls in focus of a

student’s chosen area of academic study. (Bringle, & Hatcher, 1995; Cantor, 1997; Cashman &

Seifer, 2008; Furco, 2003; Saltmarsh, 2005).

Throughout all service-learning definitions, the reflection process stands alone as one of

the most important components of service-learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Eyler, 2002;

Waterman, 2014). Reflection allows students to make sense of what they are doing and why they

are doing it rather than simply trying to find the lone sought after answer in most traditional

classroom settings (Moffat & Decker, 2000). When a student is guided through times of


reflection he/she is able to develop a feeling of purpose, a positive attitude, proper understanding

of how to work through challenging situations, make a personal connection to social issues and

explore long-term commitments. Reflection sessions also provided an opportunity for extended

peer interaction and discussion outside of the regular time-condensed lectures (Gallini & Moely,

2003). According to student-faculty feedback gathered from 400 member institutions in a

Campus Compact (2003) assessment survey regarding service-learning projects offering on

campus, the most effective types of reflection for students consist of: “providing a formal

evaluation of the experience (92%), conducting classroom presentations (86%), participating in

regular class discussions (86%), and perform daily and/or weekly journaling assignments

(85%),” (p. 19).

King and Kitchener (2004) further supports the importance of reflection with their

reflective judgment model. Under this model, students are able to provide reasoning to illogical

challenges and better understand the various and often confusing stages to problem solving

(Evans et al., 2009). Researchers however challenge faculty members to be active in the

reflection process and offer insight to students when needed. Students have reported reflection

has at times had a negative impact on them as deep thinking created overwhelming and

exhausting situations (Deeley, 2010). Students mentioned they began to overthink their mission

in their course and had a tough time disengaging from their experience, creating more stress in

their lives (Deeley, 2010). Faculty members or facilitators need to properly be aware of the

possibility of students draining themselves in thought and offer reflection prompts that gradually

bring the student back to their own personal responsibilities.

Ash and Clayton (2004) also bring an interesting perspective to what exactly reflection in

service-learning should consist of. According to their “reflective framework,” Ash and Clayton


(2004) suggest reflection should be broken into three stages: (a) explanation of the objective, (b)

review of objective within pre-determined categories and (c) test or set further goals from the

findings from the review process. During these three steps in the reflection process student

should place a focus on outcomes in each stage related to “academic, personal and civic”

responsibilities (Ash & Clayton, 2004). The importance and weight of the reflection process is

best captured by Bringle and Hatcher (1999) stating the following, “Reflection activities must

allow students to discover the value of dialogue, embrace the importance of perplexity in the

learning process, and develop the ability to make meaning of personal experience” (p. 185). By

following a well-constructed reflection process, students have a better chance of understanding

the intended outcomes of student development.

Student Development (Negative vs. Positive effects)

Several authors have identified a need for future research to be geared toward a more

thorough understanding on outcomes, assessments, and student satisfaction with service-learning

(Chadwick & Pawlowski, 2007; Myers-Lipton, 1996; Oster‐Aaland et al., 2004). When

measuring student development outcomes (negative or positive) during the service-learning

experience, the depth of wisdom gained, more specifically, occurs from peer-faculty interaction

rather than the actual obtainment of the task (Keen & Hall, 2009; Parker-Gwin & Mabry, 1998).

In a survey attempting to measure a student’s view of his/her overall development while enrolled

in a service-learning course; 40.6 percent of lower academic performing students reported

personal development was the most important factor to enhancing their learning experience (i.e.

self-awareness, understanding how they contribute to a larger picture, ability to identify things

they excel at, and building assurance) (Litke, 2002).

Negative


It is vital to acknowledge although service-learning is offered for numerous positive

reasons, negative aspects do exist and must be recognized in order to make corrections or

progressions toward the future direction of this pedagogy. Morton (1995) argues poorly arranged

service-learning courses can be a hindrance to a student’s academic experience as some classes

require too much direct instruction and not enough autonomy for the student to learn for

themselves, leading students to have a negative notion of trying to meet the professors extended

requirements rather than developing their own critical thoughts. Another negative aspect of

service-learning is untrained faculty members are unable to understand how to transition students

properly from developing critical thought in the classroom and applying it to the real world

social issues (Mitchell, 2008; Eby, 2008). Eby (1998) adds service-learning in the social sciences

can be extremely detrimental when classes are temporary situations and catered toward

mentoring children, leaving a feeling of abandonment after the experience is over. Another

negative aspect is community partners sometimes are seen as a laboratory experiment (or job) to

students rather than a real person, without proper guidance to educate students on real

community problems, the students could almost devalue the situation and develop unemotional

values to those around them (Eby, 2008).

Service learning also creates a disparity of need. Courses are geared toward helping the

students feel fulfilled that they have provided assistance rather than truly evaluating what the

need of the community is (Eby, 2008). Students may be misinformed by the power of service-

learning on a grassroots level as government intervention or larger programs are sometimes more

effective in certain situations. Students must understand their strengths and limitations as poor

faculty direction can falsify impacts students can make. According to the 2006 Campus Compact

survey, only 37 percent of the service-learning classes were actually geared toward social issues


(Campus Compact, 2006). This presents a strong findings as faculty members have a duty to help

student identify and work towards understandings these issues while in the classroom, apart from

the curriculum. Finally, a major critique of service-learning is the courses generally include

mostly white students from predominately white universities serving only minority groups, re-

enforcing racial labeling (Green, 2001). Green (2001) urges faculty to, “recruit students of all

races and class backgrounds for our service-learning classes and to develop pedagogies that

ensure these students are not asked to “represent their race” (or social class) during class

discussions” (p. 25). Faculty members who fail to add white privilege, oppression and cultural

identity into discussions during the duration of course will not only fail to help a student truly

understand social justice, but perhaps may led to re-enforcements of past beliefs (Jay, 2008).

Finally, service-learning affects each student differently and a failure to allow students to have

ownership of their service so they can develop their own “voice” could possibly create

resentment for the class or the overall purpose (Morgan & Streb, 2001).

Positive

In order to move forward with presenting its effectiveness and advantages of service-

learning on a college campus, positive offerings must be outlined in order to support this offering

so administrators have evidence of its potential. Astin et al. (2000) states service-learning have

been found to positively affect students in the following outcomes: personal efficacy, awareness

of the community need, awareness of one’s personal values, and heightened engagement in the

classroom. Students who also have completed service-learning coursework overwhelming

reported a shift in concern for others, an in-depth review of values, a responsibility to use their

economic privilege to help those less fortunate, and properly developing critical thinking skills

while navigating unfamiliar situations (Jones & Abes, 2004). Furthermore, Moely et al., (2002)


report students who participate in service-learning have a positive change in attitude toward

social justice, diversity and future involvement in his/her community. Additionally, students are

more easily able to identify solutions to social issues through a more insightful perspective,

linking community problems to larger social formations, compared to students who do

community service and blame these social issues on the individual’s cultural differences or

mental health problems (Hollis, 2002). More importantly, Astin et al. (2000) found service-

learning plays an active role in a student’s academic advancements as students reported higher

GPA’s and writing skills. Astin et al. (2000) believes this to be true based on a student’s level of

engagement in the course material. By being more engaged, a student is able to have a higher

rate of focus and inquiry to find the solutions, leading to an increased dedication to push

themselves past their original expectations (Astin et al., 2000).

In conjunction with Astin et al. (200), Cross (1998) adds academic performance is

influenced by the service-learning model because it allows students the freedom to try more

extensive approaches for interpretation of academia even if he/she don’t fully understand what is

being taught. The interesting offering of service-learning is it allows students to mold their own

personal idea by actively conversing from numerous sources within their peer group discussions,

not limited to a few textbooks, large weekly lectures or one voice of reason from the professor

(Batchelder & Root, 1994). Evidence of the satisfaction students have for exploring these

different learning techniques can be seen from their continued involvement and application

following degree completion.

In a nine-year survey measuring post-college volunteering among 12,376 graduates from

209 institutions, 44 percent of the sample who volunteered at least six hours a week their final

year in college reported volunteering at least one hour a week after graduation, revealing short-


term service-learning involvement does has a positive affect for long-term efforts (Avalos, Sax &

Astin, 1999). Research also shows faculty perceptions of how service-learning has contributed to

academic growth and life-long commitments to civic engagement.

Prentice and Robinson (2010) surveyed 17 faculty members with at least three years of

service learning experience. The faculty members stated service-learning affected their students

by: (a) creating a higher degree of enthusiasm for academics, (b) providing a space where

students felt comfortable making mistakes and taking risks, (c) creating a stronger relationship

with faculty (d) ability to identify interpret and welcome worldviews outside of their own and (e)

establishing long-term goals after graduation. Prentice and Robinson (2010) also surveyed the

students in their class with 69 percent reporting the class helped them better comprehend course

material and 76 percent reporting it helped them to have a stronger understanding of how to be a

better community member. To further look at this performance of learning the Kolb learning

model (1984) is introduced to give a more in-depth view of how students are processing their

service-learning experience.

Kolb Learning Model

Kolb’s learning model (1984) is one of the best researched-based theory models found in

the literature for service-learning. Although Kolb has not directly cited this model as one for

service-learning directly, there is strong evidence and principle for the application to service-

learning. What is significant about Kolb’s learning model (1984) is that it accounts for how

students “consciously” think as he/she processes information (Kolb, 1984). Rather than

attempting to follow a classroom model which urges students to learn through repetition,

guidelines and memorization, this model advances a new idea of how different triggers in the

brain allow students to shift learning to enhance critical thinking (Kolb, 1984). The importance


of this model and this portion of the paper is it introduces faculty members to a new standard of

learning when developing their course outline. Kolb’s learning style model (1984) is a great

resource for administrators, faculty and students to review when trying to reach student outcomes

(Jones et al., 2004). The model focuses on four areas in its cycle of learning which include: (a)

concrete experience (feeling), (b) reflective observation (watching), (c) abstract

conceptualization (thinking), and (d) active experimentation (doing) (Jones et al., 2004).

This model is important because each stage shows a variety of ways student’s process

information and what a student’s learning style may be. Learning styles are dependent on

personality types, area of study, career outlooks, and competencies (Kolb, 2005). The major

takeaway from both this model and the idea of service-learning experience is best quoted by

Kolb and Kolb (2009) stating the following, “learning style is not a psychological trait but a

dynamic state resulting from synergistic transactions between the person and the environment

similar to the spiraling process of interest development just described. This dynamic state arises

from an individual’s preferential resolution of the dual dialectics of experiencing-conceptualizing

and acting-reflecting” (p.315). More importantly, the goal of service-learning is to create

learning through active interaction. This model also helps display an opportunity for the student

to create their own interpretations and adjust them as needed. This model is intended to be

“transformational” and help push students to a multilayer of learning. To be successful in the

service-learning process you must feel, observe, think, and interpret which is all experienced

through multiple working relationships stretched outside one’s internal presence (Petkus, 2000).

The Kolb learning model (1984) takes into account both the environment and student,

creating a “dual” comparison of how each affect one another (Kolb, 1984). The idea of move

through a system that encourages observation, feeling, reflection and active engagement


encompasses a holistic style of learning in which service-learning is searching for (Jones et al.,

2004). What is important about the relationship of this model and service-learning is both aim to

work through a system of trial and error. Students are able to identify problems during the

concrete and reflective process and make changes during the abstract and active experimentation

stages (Jones et al., 2004). The Kolb learning model (1984) also allows learning to be an ongoing

process. Students may need to circle through all four processes several times before developing

an efficient result which they are comfortable with. Jones et al. (2004) mentions these model is

also beneficial because it allows different types of learners begin at different stages based on

their major or personal preference making this a universal model that can be applied to numerous

academic concentrations.

Motivation/purpose

Motivation and purpose are important components of learning, deciding how student

chose to respond to the requirements asked of them in the course (Tuckman, 2003). Without a

sense of motivation, students will never reach the expected learning outcomes (Tuckman, 2003).

According to a survey conducted by Bordelon and Phillips (2006), nearly 80 percent of the

students (87 total) polled at a mid-size university stated they have never participated in service-

learning prior to the class. Bordelon and Phillips (2006) believe a lack of incentives for both

faculty and students may be a possible theme across campuses for a lack of student interest. Even

though service-learning classes hold great opportunity for social and academic growth, many

student enroll into service-learning courses because they believe it is a GPA booster as grading is

based on competition opposed to comprehension (Gray et al., 2000; Kolenko et al., 1996).

Researchers have found although students are able to make more personal connections to

issues they might not see in the traditional classroom, they are still concerned about course load


and stress from time commitment when deciding whether or not to take a service-learning course

(Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; DeBard, 2004; Segal & Drew, 2012; Vega, 2007). Ward and Wolf-

Wendel (2000) acknowledge students are motived by different approaches to service-learning.

Some students are drawn to service-learning because they think they are doing some form of

charity while other students are more passionately involved by trying to fix social injustices

(Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000).

First-generation students have reported to highly benefit from service-learning as the

class provided high levels of motivation and enthusiasm which could be spread to additional

classes on their schedule (McKay & Estrella, 2008). A survey administered to a sample of

students (333 total) at a private university found higher levels of satisfaction for projected

learning outcomes were more positively reported by students who participated in service-

learning courses compared to those who did not in the following areas: (a) community

engagement, (b) academic engagement, (c) interpersonal engagement, (d) academic challenge,

(e) hours studied and (f) retention (Gallini & Moely, 2003).

Service-learning by major

Service-learning may differ across many academic concentrations and require various

approaches to meet the needs of the different learning styles. According to Campus Compact

(2013), the top 10 community issues addressed through campus programs from 2008-2012 were:

K-12 education, hunger, homelessness, poverty, mentoring, sustainability, tutoring, health care,

reading and writing and multiculturalism. Since 2008, diversity and healthcare service

opportunities has grown by nearly 20 percent from membership schools (Campus Compact,

2013). It is important to assess service-learning by major so there can be greater opportunities to

assert service-learning classes in less represented majors. It is important to evaluate service-


learning across a multitude of majors due to each academic department’s different styles of

application of being a “hard verse soft” academic concentration (Becher & Trowler, 2001). The

majority of service-learning is found with students studying education, healthcare and physical

sciences.

“Hard-pure fields (e.g., chemistry and physics) view knowledge as cumulative

and are concerned with universals, simplification, and quantification. Hard-

applied fields (e.g., engineering) make use of hard, pure knowledge to develop

products and techniques. Soft-pure fields (e.g., English) view knowledge as

iterative and are concerned with particularity and qualitative inquiry. Soft-

applied fields (e.g., education, management) make use of soft, pure

knowledge to develop protocols and heuristics.” (Butin, 2006, p. 479).

Scholars note reflection, one of the most important agreed upon process for students, can

be perceived in a number of different ways by major based on these “hard” and “soft” directions

of learning. Hard academic concentrations from the STEM fields often require students to omit

feelings or any attachments to the outcome, making it nearly impossible to have equal

applications to social affect for the work each student is doing (Moffat & Decker, 2000). More

specifically, uncontrolled emotion felt throughout the reflective process plays a vastly different

role across “hard” and “soft” majors as a lack of or an abundance of emotion can drastically alter

a student’s motivation or satisfaction for the course (Felten, Gilchrist & Darby, 2006).

A qualitative survey conducted by Ignatius University, found six of 11 business majors

altered their career aspirations based on a year-long service-learning program, stating traditional

academic programs previously failed to challenge them on issues past the readings while the

service-learning model was able to expand on more interesting practical applications such as the


effects business models may have on poverty in the community (Seider & Rabinowicz, 2011).

Guided by philosophical coursework, business specific service-learning programs have

introduced students to relevant “stakeholders” and positively affected their goodwill to conduct

ethical business that was not only for their gain but for those around them as well (Seider &

Rabinowicz, 2011). A 2011 consultant project assessment for business majors in a service-

learning class at Florida Gulf Coast University also found student’s involvement to positively

correlate to effective sustainability initiatives alongside community partners, leading to lower

costs, increased sales and alternatives to the company mission (Segal & Drew, 2012).

Students reported a high satisfaction of confidence for their learning outcomes as they

were able to have real professional experience with a client and contribute to business operations

(Segal & Drew, 2012). Vega (2007) additionally found business students reported high

satisfaction while working with the community, taking pride in the connections made with

individuals outside of the work such as sharing photos or stories. In comparison, findings suggest

more assessment of business-majors involved in service-learning needs to be conducted in order

to better measure goal orientation, time management and appropriate course load (Schlesinger &

Cohen, 2009; Segal & Drew, 2012; Seider & Rabinowicz, 2011; Vega, 2007). Education majors

(teachers) have found service-learning opportunities helped them break through “assumptions”

of working with intercity students, shifting a focus of “blame” on students to trying to meet their

“needs” (Baldwin, Buchanan & Rudisill, 2007).

It is no surprise students from different academic concentrations process information

differently. As faculty members begin to develop service-learning agendas it is important the

faculty member is doing personal evaluation to identify best approaches to enhance his/her area

of study opposed to taking from a universal idea. Faculty members should also review how they


plan to hold students accountable as both a group and individuals, encourage dialogue, challenge

or identify problems for students and create separate climates for times of active engagement

compared to space to process/reflect on their work (Smith et al., 2005). By taking time to

properly access and prepare a course for a students’ needs, the faculty member’s involvement

will be that of great enrichment for his/her students.

Faculty Involvement

Motivation/incentives

Scholars strongly state a failure to recognize a faculty member’s time and effort in

service-learning instruction will severely affect any possible growth to increase service-learning

opportunities throughout campus (Ward, 1998). Faculty members that are both supported by

university committees (where president’s, dean’s and department head’s set on) and recognized

through tenure, pay, research grants, awards, etc. stand as the best agents of success. According

to 2012 survey administered to 557 higher education institutions, a mere seven percent of all

faculty members taught some type of service learning course at their respected institution

(Campus Compact, 2013). Hinck and Brandell, (2000) add, roughly 100 national universities

were survey in a 1996 service-learning survey, “80 percent indicated that 10 percent or less of

the faculty are teaching service-learning courses,” (p.876) More alarming, as interest in service-

learning is rising among schools, involvement from faculty has failed to rise over seven percent

during the 2008-12 span. This trend is occurring even though rewards for faculty members

conducting service-learning have however rose from 48 percent (2008) to 68 percent (2012)

(Campus Compact, 2013). Additionally, sabbaticals for service-learning research, program

development and scholarship has risen from 19 percent (2008) to 33 percent (2012). Rewards

offered to faculty members generally consisted of funds to conduct professional development for


the course (78 percent) while only 39 percent institutions report they reward faculty with

incentives that are not service-learning-related (Campus Compact, 2004).

In a quantitative survey conducted by Abes and Jones (2002), 60 percent of 500 faculty

members surveyed stated interest for service-learning came from faculty members in other

departments and 37 percent said student’s personal development was a main driving force for

their decision to do service-learning. Furthermore, 39 percent said service-learning affected their

motivation in a negative way because it was time-intensive task and 25 percent stated it was

difficult to coordinate efforts with the community (Abes & Jones, 2002). According to the 2003

Campus Compact assessment, the key incentives offered for a faculty member’s service learning

involvement included: faculty workshops (76 percent) curriculum models available (74 percent)

and service learning conference expenses (60 percent). The 2003 Campus Compact assessment

also found support for faculty incentives were the lowest in the following areas: grants for

curriculum design (51 percent), service awards (39 percent), tenure/promotion consideration (27

percent), and student assistants (24 percent) (Campus Compact, 2003).

Curriculum

According to Campus Compact (2013), “62 percent of member campuses require service-

learning as part of the core curriculum of at least one major, up from 51 percent in 2010.” More

importantly, Abes and Jones (2002) state over half of faculty members surveyed on course

development claimed they did not know how to use service-learning efficiently in their

curriculum design and did not have the time to properly develop a meaningful syllabus outside of

their professional responsibilities. More interesting is the gap which persists of both the faculty’s

lack of knowledge to develop a thorough course outline and a student’s pre-course readiness.

Checkoway (2001) states only a small percentage of students are inclined to handle the needs of


the community on their own and require preparation from faculty members before entering the

service site. To answer this concern, Bringle and Hatcher (1996) created the Comprehensive

Action Plan for Service learning (CAPSL) table as a way to steer faculty in the right direction

when implementing a new service learning offering, delivering a model which will help faculty

members feel more confident about implementing a new course. CAPSL incorporates four levels

to review that affect the class installment (institution, faculty, students and community). Within

these four levels each is evaluated by 10 elements (planning, awareness, class prototype,

resources, expansion, recognition, monitoring, evaluation, research and institutionalization

(Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Using these guidelines for CASPSL, faculty and university officials

are able to organize more specific goals by a school’s personal mission. Basic curriculum

parameters are also suggested to include the following: (a) development opportunities to sharpen

citizenship skills for both faculty and students, (b) create awareness of social change that allows

students to see their role in a larger setting, (c) explore co-facilitators such as community leaders

developing the objectives with the faculty and (d) strive to build off past service-learning classes

where students are able to be a part of an ongoing project that is rolled over year after year rather

than ending that semester (Seifer, 1998).

Scholars have suggested more ethical or social-based service-learning classes should be

offered as an elective course (Kolenko et al., 1996; Parker-Gwin & Mabry, 1998). By doing so

students are able to evaluate how the communal need is connected to academics. A more

advanced course would reverse that idea and focus more on how the academics tie into the

communal need (Kolenko et al., 1996; Parker-Gwin & Mabry, 1998). Though voluntary

offerings for students to enroll in service-learning have proven to be successful, research has

found the majority of students who enter into voluntary service-learning classes have had


previous community service experience and generally already have a strongly established view

of social justice and privilege. Scholars have found students who are placed in required service

learning classes are forced to think differently than they have before in the past, resulting in the

higher probability of positive occurrences. Student’s motivation and views on service have been

known to change once enrolled in the course, and an initial disinterest in service-learning does

not mean a student will keep this same mentality throughout the course.

Required service-learning courses for graduation may not always lead a student to

develop required learning outcomes for social justice, but it will expose them to a new wave of

learning with their peers, giving an option to view their values with others so they have to take a

stance on how they feel about the experience (Speck, 2001). If anything, required service

learning increases a student’s options to see the world in a different lens and rarely has it been

found to digress their views in a more negative manner from being put in the position to do

service. Results suggest students’ academic comprehension is also strongest at the work site and

applications to the coursework is actually best served when there is immediate discussion on site

(Parker-Gwin & Marbry, 1998). Findings encourage faculty members to arrange their curriculum

in a way where students are in control of their own application to the academic framework from

the social issues they encountered in the field. By giving a student ownership to explore the

course in the way they wish, there is less of an overwhelming feeling for students to meet

specific academic requirements in order to proof competency. Objectives should be clear and

concise but, also open to different degrees of open reflection based on a student’s experience.

The goal of service-learning is to allow service to be the most important aspect of the

program (Weigert, 1998). Though focus is placed on the development of learning from actually

doing the service, objectivities should be properly outlined to give students somewhat of a


boundary to the relationship of their work to the course (Weigert, 1998). Faculty members

should also give students opportunity to grow in their academic pursuits by offering extension

journaling, writing prompts and questions so there is a way to measure one’s development.

Grading in service learning should not be graded through a competitive bell curve but rather

viewed on an individual basis which measures the level of comprehension apart from anyone in

the class. Students should not be limited to specific answers, but they should be able to display a

proof of continual improvement from their experiences (Weigert, 1998).

Establishing partnerships

Kenworthy-U’Ren, (2008) notes “trust” among the community partner and the university

yields as one of the most important factors when building new or on-going relationships.

Kenworrthy-U’Ren (2008) argue faculty members need to communicate a long-term plan during

the initial contact with the partner rather than basing the program on a semester-to-semester

outlook. Cushman (2002) suggests the best way to build a meaningful relationship with a

community partner is to show your intent early. Faculty members are encouraged to attend

company meetings, review company plans, conduct interviews and show interest before

introducing students to the partnership (Cushman, 2002). Using Campus Compacts (1998)

suggestions for partnerships, Jacoby (2003) recommends the following for producing lasting and

valuable community partnerships: identify common values and a shared vision, strive to develop

solutions to multifaceted problems and challenge each other to move past simplicity, set out clear

and flexible outcomes, share credit with all parties involved, balance the authority so that one

group is not in complete control and encourage active communication and feedback throughout

the process.


One of the best ways to have a successful partnership is allowing the community partner

the platform to offer advice or suggestions to the curriculum which best meet the needs of all

parties involved (Wade, 1997). Community partners should also be invited on-campus to lecture

students in the classroom or sent invitations to connect with students outside of the actual

service-learning site so there is a level of commitment shown by everyone involved of extra

effort to be in changing environments (Gelmon, 2003). Applegate and Morreale (1999) strongly

advocate for establishing mutual respect, partnerships without respect the partnership will

eventually fail. The partner should feel just as involved in the experience as the faculty and

students do. The relationship can be best thought of a democracy that strives to have clear

channels of communication in times of disagreement.

As shown above, the faculty have an important role in the success of the service-learning

experience. Faculty incentives should be explored in order to better compensate the work they

are doing. Faculty members should also spend more time developing a service-learning

curriculum compared other traditional classes they teach. They should also reach out to

university officials to explore how to present the classes in course catalogs (electives, required).

Finally, faculty members should make a commitment to strength community partnerships from

year to year.

Institutionalism

Why Should Administrators Care About Service-Learning?

Service-learning is a growing phenomenon among many competitive universities that

cannot be ignored. According to Shumer and Cook (1999), “almost 2 million students

participate in service-learning at 4 year public and private institutions … in the last 15 years


school-based programs have proliferated by almost 3700 percent,” (p. 7-8). In a time where

budget cuts are prevalent there are still numerous reasons why institutions should be making

investments into service-learning. One of these reasons is first-year student retention. As first-

year students struggle to find their place on a college campus, active learning with peers outside

of a traditional setting builds comradery and an allegiance to the university, helping give students

involved in the program a sense of belonging or pride in his/her reasoning to being a part of the

campus (Tinto, 1999). What is special about service-learning is the effect it has on a student’s

attitude. During service-learning a student is able to feel, experience and challenge new

perspectives by their own personal narrative. This attitude is something you cannot teach in most

traditional courses because it is experienced based. In order to create student populations that

have a shift in attitude for academics, universities should allow students the opportunity to let

students learn in these settings (Moely et al., 2002). By doing so graduation, retention rates and

commitment for the university will be elevated (Kuh et al., 2008). Service-learning also builds

significance in a student’s academic pursuits as the service-learning class allows students the

opportunity to foster a sense of responsibility to learning past the paper and pen (Hinck &

Brandell, 2000). This shows service-learning opportunities increase commitment and dedication

to the course among students.

Service-learning also allows opportunities for students to explore their career path,

elevating their passion for their area of study by being able to actively transfer classroom

knowledge into accelerated results for the community (Dubinsky, 2002). Service-learning has

also repeatedly shown how students’ academic performance is rising based on their involvement.

Gray et al. (2000) mention grades generally rise in service-learning courses because students

usually devote more time to the course and apply themselves more. Overall, students mixing


course work and civic engagement into their learning experience creates a better-rounded student

and universities who strive to incorporate citizenship into their universal framework should

support these types of classes.

Provided support

One of the initial problems administers face when trying to actively engage in service-

learning initiatives is properly identifying the student population which participate in service-

learning. Universities have been found to mislabel the ever-changing demographics that are

found today in our classrooms such as non-traditional students, veterans, or those who hold the

responsibility of parenthood (Butin, 2006). In a 2004 pilot study administered by Prentice

(2007), 32 percent of students who participated in service-learning were at least 25 years old.

Clearly, there is evidence of a need to better serve non-traditional students (age, military status).

Additionally, many universities have overlooked the vast concentration of academic programs on

their campus as each college or major need a variety of support based on their learning models

rather than rolling out one simple service-learning support system (Gronski & Pigg, 2000).

Ways universities can be more effective to support faculty members is devoting resources to

assess the true community need. Each community, based in their specific geographic location,

requires assistance which may not be found in other successful service-learning programs across

regions (natural disaster, economy change, resources for underrepresented groups, etc.) which

must be addressed (Schwartzman, 2007).

Furco (1999) introduced a “self-assessment rubric to help university officials lay a

foundation to better meet the exact problems (as cited by Schwartzman, 2007). According to

Furco (1999), the major components to focus on in the institutionalism phrase are coordinating,

policy making, staffing, funding, administrative support and evaluation and assessment.


Furthermore, universities can provide support by being active in identifying comparable interests

among administrators and community members so both can be joined by a passion of “empathy”

(Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). By doing so, service-learning takes on the form of a meaningful

relationship rather than a completion of a task. Five-hundred faculty members surveyed across

26 universities stated program discussion (67 percent), access and assistance to professional

conferences or committees (55 percent) and investments in internal develop (51 percent) were

the most effective forms of university support offered to faculty members teaching service-

learning (Abes, Jackson & Jones, 2002). Deans and presidents also have a duty to be available

for faculty members through on-going communication of need so that the service-learning

programs can have a presence in discussions surrounding funding allocation, campus priorities

and long-term advancement meeting in which faculty member may not have access to (Vogel,

Seifer & Gelmon, 2010).

Other support offered at some universities includes: (a) social events such as sponsored

dinners with administrators, students and faculty, (b) helping develop advertisement or

promotional material to showcase success or awareness, (c) offering a “learning fair” which is

separate from a student organization fair where students can have open dialogue with an

assortment of passionate students or faculty members and (d) making the decision to hire an

individual to supervise all service-learning programs so there is a defined presence of

centralization (Burrows, et al. 1999).

Funding

Service-learning had been argued as being both financially too costly and time

consuming for faculty member to support on their own (Myers-Lipton, 1998). Put into

perspective of a larger university-wide comparison, both the community service office and the


service-learning office budgets tend to be less than $20,000 at most American universities

(Campus Compact, 2003). Uncontested, the main factor facing service-learning advancements is

funding. Funding for campus projects is also broadly broken up in to “soft” (gifts and grants) and

“hard” (state funds, tuition and fees, endowments funding) funding streams. The more successful

campuses who were able to maintain service-learning programs were those who found ways to

gather “hard” money within the university its self (Young et al., 2007).

In the Young et al. (2007) study on service-learning programs, “three out of the seven

indicated that the grants (soft money) they received accounted for only 5-10 % of their operating

budgets and the money was primarily used for a slush fund or creative activities” (p. 355).

Bringle and Hatcher (2000) also found institutions that were committed to hiring consulting

firms to help university officials put together a structured plan stood at being the most successful

at developing strong service-learning offerings. Morton and Troppe (1996) further report 64

percent of universities who pursued discussion with consulting firms that provided training

programs or seminars upheld roughly an $82,000 average for service-learning assistance within

the university’s operating budget. Eyler (2002) also adds faculty members need to be supplied

with funding so they have access to “practical resources.”

Long-term planning

Bringle and Hatcher (2000) suggest the following areas to considering when attempting

to enact a campus-wide service-learning program, “(a) conduct regular strategic planning, (b)

establishing and developing a centralized office not only to recruit but also to develop each of the

four constituencies, (c) increasing institutional budget commitments to support the development

of service-learning; and (d) vesting the commitment service learning with leadership that

establishes and maintains academic integrity,” (p.288). More specifically, community partners


have admitted their experience and comfort to engage with a large research university was more

at ease with those colleges that had a centralized office compared to programs ran solely by

untenured faculty members (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). In a surveyed which interviewed

faculty members from three larger research universities stated administrators service-learning but

failed to provided funding streams or allow further “course releases” (Lambright & Alden,

2012). This problem to me seems as one of the biggest problems to investing true meaningful

approaches to long-term planning for universities. Two different messages are being

communicated here. The university is saying we care about this area of academic, but not to the

point to enhance it. This can come off as extremely discouraging to faculty members in my view.

John Kotter, Harvard Business School Professor, created an eight step plan for

organizations in transition which could help steer universities who are attempting to upgrade

their service-learning experience. Kotter’s eight linear steps include the following:

(a)”establishing a sense of urgency, (b) forming a power guiding coalition, (c) creating a vision,

(d) communicating the vision, (e) empowering others to act on the vision, (f) planning for and

creating short-term wins, (g) consolidating improvements and producing still more change and

(h) institutionalizing new approaches (Kotter, 1995, p. 61)

The connection between these eight steps and the administrator/faculty relationships falls

under steps 5-8. University administrators’ success by creating a vision, urgency, expected

outcomes from the vision, but seem to stop at empowerment. State earlier, faculty members state

they do not feel supported. They admit the university supports the idea of service-learning but it

fails to do anything beyond that. Faculty members are not empowered because a commitment to

funding and incentives is scarce. There is a lack of reward structure such as promotion or pay

during step six (celebrating short-term wins). There is not a desire to make improvements (step


seven) based on the initiative to hire more staff for service-learning or even work towards

creating a centralized office. The bottom line of this comparison is the university needs to be

more involved and colleges need to stop using budget cuts as a way to cover up their limited

involvement. Universities need to create service-learning planning committees that involve both

the administrators and the faculty. This committee could be run through the Faculty Senate and

communicated up with the university president. In Furco’s (1996) self-assessment rubric for the

institutionalization of service-learning in higher education, Furco (1996) states, policy making,

funding, staffing, coordinating and assessment are all a part of the university’s responsibilities

and they need to take responsibility for each of these. A reoccurring theme in university

implementation is funding. Findings from Young et al. (2007) also show a disparity in funding.

“Not a single service-learning program covered in our study operated solely or even

primarily on grant money, which seems to indicate that while grant money can assist in starting

up a service-learning program, it is not a viable means for keeping it running. If the goal of

program directors is to ensure the viability, longevity, and institutionalization of service

learning at their institutions, then attempting to operate using exclusively soft money, with the

restrictions typically placed on it and the unreliability of securing it, is undesirable and unlikely

to lead to the achievement of goals” (Young et al., 2007, p. 362)

Jeandron and Robinson (2010) re-enforce colleges have a duty to provide financial

support, administrators needs to be more active in student-community partner gatherings on-site,

provide a commitment to service-learning and a language of dedication in faculty orientation/ job

descriptions and educate donors on opportunities to donate to service-learning. Overall,

universities, need to evaluate funding streams to support service-learning courses and dedicate

time to create long-term planning.


Discussion

The findings from this literature strongly suggest service-learning has more positive

effects on students than it does negatively. However, it is important to take notice of the negative

effects service-learning can have on a student and work towards improving potential downfalls

for the student’s academic, personal and civic development (Astin et al., 2000).

Throughout all service-learning definitions, the reflection process stands alone as one of

the most important components of service-learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Eyler, 2002;

Waterman, 2014). Faculty members should continue to seek out ways to improve the reflective

process by using Kolb’s (1984) learning model as a guide. Scholars strongly state a failure to

recognize a faculty member’s time and effort in service-learning instruction will severely affect

any possible growth to increase service learning opportunities throughout campus (Ward, 1998).

It is vital faculty members have extensive support and have assistance in developing a sound

curriculum. Basic curriculum parameters are also suggested to include the following: (a)

development opportunities to sharpen citizenship skills for both faculty and students, (b) create

awareness of social change that allows students to see their role in a larger setting, (c) explore

co-facilitators such as community leaders developing the objectives with the faculty and (d)

strive to build off past service-learning classes where students are able to be a part of an ongoing

project that is rolled over year after year rather than ending that semester (Seifer, 1998).

Community partners should have an active place in the curriculum. Community partners

should also be invited on-campus to lecture students in the classroom or sent invitations to

connect with students outside of the actual service-learning site so there is a level of commitment

shown by everyone involved of extra effort to be in changing environments (Gelmon, 2003).

Applegate and Morreale (1999) strongly advocate for establishing mutual respect, partnerships


without respect the partnership will eventually fail. Finally, long-term planning initiatives should

be a top priority. Furco’s (1996) self-assessment rubric for the institutionalization of service

learning in higher education, Furco (1996) states, policy making, funding, staffing, coordinating

and assessment are all a part of the university’s responsibilities and they need to take

responsibility for each of these.

My personal experience (Public Relations Class)

I can speak personally to the effects service-learning can have on a student due to my

involvement in a course during my undergraduate years. I participated in a service-learning

course my junior year at Bowling Green State University. The public relations course was

offered through the School of Journalism and modeled a working public relations firm. What I

appreciated about the course is it was a small class size with a lot of accountability. Each student

was assigned a position in this makeshift public relations firm. The class was graded based on

the performance as a whole group rather than assigning individual grades. This encouraged us to

work together and really hold each other responsible. Our assignment was to create a free public

relations campaign for a non-profit community partner. Some students were voted to serve in

leadership roles such as president and brand managers while others held supporting roles like a

real firm would have.

Everyone involved was active in committees such as those who did assessment, branding,

advertising and print. My motivation in this service-learning course was much higher than others

that academic term. My motivation was high because we all saw the class as being fun. We

didn’t know where we were going with the course or where we would end up and the

possibilities of what it could be was exhilarating. Not only did it allow us to build a professional

portfolio from the work we did it also allowed us to contribute to something rather than trying to


meet the requirements of the course to pass. Our professor was extremely hands off and allowed

us to work on disagreements on our own which I truly appreciated. I liked the experience

because the class was in control of the outcome for the client, not the professor. I did feel a sense

of ownership for our work and felt we did extremely quality work because we knew very few

students in our program were able to take advantage of this course. Speaking with our campus

partner and personally hearing their voice of concern was high motivation for me.

The work I did was viewed as something that could create change for the partner and it

was fulfilling. Our class reflected throughout the experience through personal journaling and

classroom discussion. I truly felt it prepared me for the major I was in and did give me

confidence in my higher public relation classes because we learned real-life concepts through

that experience which students in our later classes only learned through a book. I felt ahead of

the game and most rewarding is we were able to make an impact for a campus partner who did

not have the budget to pay for work we provided. Speaking with our campus partners and seeing

their appreciation make the work worthwhile. I remember we all received an “A” in the course,

but the biggest takeaway was I was able to learn in a group for the community in need and see

out hard work make an impact. That type of learning only motivated me further for my area of

study. O'Meara & Niehaus (2009) suggest faculty members to take on the role of supports rather

than facilitators, allowing the community partner and the student to be a joined educator for the

process. My professor followed this process and by doing so it allowed me to stretch my ideas

farther than I ever have because I was reaching for my own satisfaction for service rather than

attempting to meet the goal of the course.

New Policy Suggestion


Based on the findings from the literature review several suggestions from a policy

standpoint can be made. Universities, even in times of budget cuts, must explore funding streams

to support service-learning classes. I suggest university officials should create a committee that is

composed of each college’s academic dean. By doing so, departments can best determine what

programs and faculty members are available for course section. This committee will meet twice a

year with key university officials (i.e. president, vice provosts, etc.) in order to determine how

funds can be allocated across several if not all academic concentrations. This committee will also

present during faculty governance meetings as a way to hear from faculty members.

I also suggest universities to work with endowment fund controllers in order to create

potential investments portfolios for service-learning opportunities. Donors and controllers should

be in active conversation about the financial need to support service-learning opportunities.

Alumni associations should collaborate with the academic deans committee in order to best

advertise or present the positives of service-learning to potential donors. I suggest universities to

also explore funding through segregated fees. As I mentioned before, service-learning should be

spread out to all academic concentrations on campus. With an equal opportunity for all students

to be involved in service-learning this portion will be accessed in the instructional fees, allowing

each academic department a share of the funds. I also suggest universities to invest in hiring

individuals for grant writing. Based on the finding from Bringle and Hatcher (2000), I agree that

universities should also hire outside consulting firms to assess the developments of the service-

learning plan. A policy should be put into place and outside consulting firm will review the

centralized service-learning programs bi-annually. By doing do the firm will be able to evaluate

how the university is as stewards for funding. Additionally they will evaluate student

performance and satisfaction from the course.


Service-learning, if it is not already, should be implemented into each university’s

academic core. Students should be exposed to service-learning by both elective offerings and

required courses. Elective courses of service-learning should be offered to first or second year

students. Required courses should be offered to junior or senior level students after they have

matriculated into their major. Prior to graduation, a student should be required to participate in a

service-learning course within their major. In order to meet the demand for these courses faculty

members will be provided incentives for teaching the course. These incentives would include

bonuses, vacation days and award banquets. Faculty and students who participate in service-

learning should be recognized by the university. University public relation teams should work to

activity promote the dedication of each faculty member.

Future Implications

Service-learning is still trying to find its identity in the higher education curriculum.

Future studies should focus on gathering data on long-term community affects from service-

learning. Literature on service-learning should take into account not only how the student is

affected by the experience but how the community experiences the work with the university as

well. Many of the studies conducted on service-learning fail to detail or access how community

partnerships can be better sustained. As it can be seen in the literature successful service-learning

projects allow community partners to have active involvement. Studies should additionally

conduct more longitudinal studies on how a service-learning course has affected a student’s

academic or social perceptions. While looking into social perceptions researchers should access

how social justice and diversity can be better included into the service-learning course. Though

social justice is discussed several times, there is a still a lingering doubt of how to implement

social justice initiatives into the course through action not by simply good faith. Scholars should


press on to see how social justice can be more a part of the learning process. Researchers should

also continue to evaluate faculty perceptions on funding, incentives and motivation.


References

Abes, E. S., Jackson, G., & Jones, S. R. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of

service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9, 5-17.

Applegate, J. L., & Morreale, S. P. (1999). Service-learning in communication: A natural

partnership. Voices of strong democracy: Concepts and models for service-learning in

communication studies, ix-xiv.

Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection

and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137-154.

Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., & Atkinson, M. P. (2005). Integrating Reflection and Assessment to

Capture and Improve Student Learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service

Learning, 11(2), 49-60.

Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service

participation. Service Participation, 39(3), 251.

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects

students. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.

Avalos, J., Sax, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during the

undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187-202.

Baldwin, S. C., Buchanan, A. M., & Rudisill, M. E. (2007). What teacher candidates learned

about diversity, social justice, and themselves from service-learning experiences. Journal

of Teacher Education, 58(4), 315-327.


Batchelder, T. H., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academic

learning and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Journal of

Adolescence, 17(4), 341-355.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the

culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.

Blouin, D. D., & Perry, E. M. (2009). Whom does service learning really serve? Community-

based organizations' perspectives on service learning. Teaching Sociology, 37(2), 120-

135.

Bordelon, T. D., & Phillips, I. (2006). Service-learning What students have to say. Active

Learning in Higher Education, 7(2), 143-153.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2005). Redesigning assessment for learning beyond higher

education. Research and development in higher education, 28, 34-41.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. The

Journal of Higher Education, 221-239.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in Service Learning: Making Meaning or

Experience. Educational Horizons, 179.

Bringle, R. G., & Kremer, J. F. (1993). Evaluation of an intergenerational service‐learning

project for undergraduates. Educational Gerontology: An International Quarterly, 19(5),

407-416.


Burrows, M. S., Chauvin, S., Lazarus, C. J., & Chehardy, P. (1999). Required service learning

for medical students: Program description and student response. Teaching and Learning

in Medicine, 11(4), 223-231.

Butin, D. W. (2006). The limits of service-learning in higher education. The Review of Higher

Education, 29(4), 473-498.

Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community

engagement in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Campus Compact. (2013). Creating a Culture of Assessment: 2012 Campus Compact Annual

Member Survey. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.

Campus Compact. (2006).Highlights and Trends of Campus Compact’s Annual Member

Survey: 2006 Survey Statistics. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.

Campus Compact. (2004). Highlights and Trends of Campus Compact’s Annual Member

Survey: 2004 Survey Statistics. Boston, MA: Campus Compact





Cantor, J. A. (1997). Experiential Learning in Higher Education: Linking Classroom and

Community. ERIC Digest.

Cashman, S. B., & Seifer, S. D. (2008). Service-learning: an integral part of undergraduate

public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(3), 273-278.


Compact, M. C. (2000). Maximizing impact, minimizing harm: Why service-learning must more

fully integrate multicultural education. Integrating service learning and multicultural

education in colleges and universities, 247.

Chadwick, S. A., & Pawlowski, D. R. (2007). Assessing Institutional Support for Service-

Learning: A Case Study of Organizational Sensemaking. Michigan Journal of

Community Service Learning, 13(2), 31-39

Cone, D., & Harris, S. (1996). Service-Learning Practice: Developing. Michigan Journal of

Community Service Learning, 3, 31-43.

Corporation for National and Community Service. 1990 National and Community Service Act of

1990.

Cross, K. P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now. About campus, 3(3), 4-11.

Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. E. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning research.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 28-34.

Cushman, E. (2002). Sustainable service learning programs. College Composition and

Communication, 40-65.

Deeley, S. J. (2010). Service-learning: Thinking outside the box. Active Learning in Higher

Education, 11(1), 43-53.

Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. Simon and Schuster.

Driscoll, A. (2000). Studying Faculty and Service-Learning: Directions for Inquiry and

Development. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning.


Dubinsky, J. M. (2002). Service-learning as a path to virtue: The ideal orator in professional

communication. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(2), 61-74.

Eby, J. (1998). Why service-learning is bad.

Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social justice,

multicultural competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student

Development, 49(2), 95-109.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009).Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning—Linking students and

communities. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517-534.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1997). The importance of program quality in service-learning. Service-

learning: Applications from the research, 57-76.

Forsyth, A., Lu, H., & McGirr, P. (2000). Service learning in an urban context: Implications for

planning and design education. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 236-

259.

Furco, A. (2003). Issues of definition and program diversity in the study of service-

learning. Studying service-learning: Innovations in education research methodology, 13-

33.

Furco, A. (1999). Self-assessment rubric for the institutionalization of service-learning in higher

education.

Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education.


Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2004). Enduring influences of service-learning on college

students' identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 149-166.

Gallini, S. M., & Moely, B. E. (2003). Service-learning and engagement, academic challenge,

and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10, 5-14.

Gelmon, S. B. (2003). Assessment as a means of building service-learning partnerships.

Building partnerships for service-learning, 42-64.

Gray, M. J., Ondaatje, E. H., & Zakaras, L. (1999). Combining Service and Learning in Higher

Education: Learn and Serve America, Higher Education. Summary Report.

Gray, M. J., Ondaatje, E. H., Fricker Jr, R. D., & Geschwind, S. A. (2000). Assessing Service-

Learning: Results From a Survey of “Learn and Serve America, Higher Education”.

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 30-39.

Green, A. E. (2001). But you aren’t White”: Racial perceptions and service-learning. Michigan

Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(1), 18-26.

Gronski, R., & Pigg, K. (2000). University and Community Collaboration Experiential Learning

in Human Services. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 781-792.

Hinck, S. S., & Brandell, M. E. (2000). The relationship between institutional support and

campus acceptance of academic service learning. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5),

868-881.

Hollis, S. A. (2002). Capturing the experience: Transforming community service into service

learning. Teaching Sociology, 200-213.

Howard, J. (2001). Service-Learning Course Design Workbook.


Jacoby, B. (2003). Fundamentals of service-learning partnerships. Building partnerships for

service-learning, 1-19.

Jay, G. (2008). Service learning, multiculturalism, and the pedagogies of

difference. Pedagogy, 8(2), 255-281.

Jeandron, C., & Robinson, G. (2010). Creating a Climate for Service Learning

Success. American Association of Community Colleges (NJ1).

Jones, Susan R., and Elisa S. Abes. "Enduring influences of service-learning on college students'

identity development." Journal of College Student Development, 45.2 (2004): 149-166.

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of what? The politics of service learning. Phi

Delta Kappan, 77, 592-599.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the

development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational

psychologist, 39(1), 5-18.

Keen, C., & Hall, K. (2009). Engaging with difference matters: Longitudinal student outcomes

of co-curricular service-learning programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 59-

79.

Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. L. (2008). A decade of service-learning: A review of the field ten years

after JOBE’s seminal special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 811-822.

Kolb, A. Y. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory—version 3.1 2005 technical

specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct, 200 after JOBE’s seminal special

issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 811-822.


Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way meta-cognitive aspects of experiential

learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297-327.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolenko, T. A., Porter, G., Wheatley, W., & Colby, M. (1996). A critique of service learning

projects in management education: Pedagogical foundations, barriers, and guidelines.

Journal of Business Ethics, 15(1), 133-142.

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects

of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of

Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563.


Lambright, K. T., & Alden, A. F. (2012). Voices from the trenches: Faculty perspectives on

support for sustaining service-learning. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and

Engagement, 16(2), 9-46.

Litke, R. A. (2002). Do all students" get it?: Comparing students' reflections to course

performance. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 27-34.

Lounsbury, M., & Pollack, S. (2001). Institutionalizing civic engagement: Shifting logics and the

cultural repackaging of service-learning in US higher education. Organization, 8(2),

319-339.

Mabry, J. B. (1998). Pedagogical Variations in Service-Learning and Student Outcomes: How

Time, Contact, and Reflection Matter. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,

5, 32-47.

McKay, V. C., & Estrella, J. (2008). First-generation student success: The role of faculty

interaction in service learning courses. Communication Education, 57(3), 356-372.

Mendel‐Reyes, M. (1998). A pedagogy for citizenship: Service learning and democratic

education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1998 (73), 31-38.

Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to

differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2).

Moffat, J., & Decker, R. (2000). Service-learning reflection for engineering: a faculty

guide. Design That Matters: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in

Engineering, 31-39.


Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: how student voice in service‐learning

develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 154-169.

Morton, K., & Troppe, M. (1996). From the margin to the mainstream: Campus Compact's

project on Integrating Service with Academic Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(1),

21-32.

Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1996). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program on college

students’ level of modern racism. Michigan Journal of Community Service

Learning, 3(1), 44-54.

Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1998). Effect of a Comprehensive Service-Learning Program on College

Students' Civic Responsibility. Teaching sociology, 243-258.

National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. 2011. What is Service Learning. https://gsn-

newdemo2.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/456/original/Definition%20of%20Service%20

Learning.pdf?1308690290

O'Meara, K., & Niehaus, E. (2009). Service-Learning Is... How Faculty Explain Their

Practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 17-32.

Oster‐Aaland, L. K., Sellnow, T. L., Nelson, P. E., & Pearson, J. C. (2004). The status of service

learning in departments of communication: a follow‐up study: Brief Reports.

Communication Education, 53(4), 348-356.

Parker-Gwin, R., & Mabry, J. B. (1998). Service learning as pedagogy and civic education:

Comparing outcomes for three models. Teaching sociology, 276-291.


Petkus, E. (2000). A theoretical and practical framework for service-learning in marketing:

Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 64-70.

Prentice, M. (2007). Service learning and civic engagement. Academic Questions, 20(2), 135-

145.

Prentice, M., & Robinson, G. (2010). Improving Student Learning Outcomes with Service

Learning. American Association of Community Colleges (NJ1).

Saltmarsh, J. (2005). The Civic Promise of Service Learning. Liberal education,91(2), 50-55.

Schlesinger, W., & Cohen, A. (2009). Developing a Service Learning Project to Enhance

Business Students’ Mentoring Skills. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 1, 45-50.

Schwartzman, R. (2007). Service-Learning Pathologies and Prognoses.

Seider, S. C., Gillmor, S. C., & Rabinowicz, S. A. (2011). The impact of community service

learning upon the worldviews of business majors versus non-business majors at an

American university. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 485-503.

Seifer, S. D. (1998). Service-learning: Community-campus partnerships for health professions e

ducation. Academic Medicine, 73(3), 273-7.

Segal, G., & Drew, S. (2012). A service-learning consulting project for undergraduate business

sustainability education." Journal of Sustainability and Green Business 1 (2012): 1-13.

Shumer, R., & Cook, C. (1999). The Status of Service-Learning in the United States: Some Facts

and Figures.


Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of

engagement: Classroom‐based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-

101.

Speck, B. W. (2001). Why Service‐Learning?. New directions for higher education, 2001(114),

3-13.sustainability education. Journal of Sustainability and Green Business, 1, 1-13.

Speck, B. W., & Hoppe, S. L. (Eds.). (2004). Service-learning: History, theory, and issues.

Greenwood Publishing Group.

Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA

journal, 19(2), 5-9.

Tuckman, B. W. (2003). The Effect of Learning and Motivation Strategies Training on College

Students Achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 430-437.

Vega, G. (2007). Teaching business ethics through service learning metaprojects. Journal of

Management Education, 31(5), 647-678.

Vogel, A. L., Seifer, S. D., & Gelmon, S. B. (2010). What Influences the Long-Term

Sustainability of Service-Learning? Lessons from Early Adopters. Michigan Journal of

Community Service Learning, 17(1), 59-74.

Wade, R. C. (1997). Community service-learning: Commitment through active citizenship. In

Meeting the standards: social studies readings for K-6 educators (p. 237). Natl Council

for the Social.

Ward, K. (1998). Addressing academic culture: Service learning, organizations, and faculty

work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1998(73), 73-80.


Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning moving from doing

for to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 767-780.

Waterman, A. S. (Ed.). (2014). Service-learning: Applications from the research. Routledge.

Management Education, 31(5), 647-678.

Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and

opportunities for community engagement at research universities. The Review of Higher

Education, 32(1), 73-106.

Weigert, K. M. (1998). Academic service learning: Its meaning and relevance. New Directions

for Teaching and Learning, 1998(73), 3-10.

Young, C. A., Shinnar, R. S., Ackerman, R. L., Carruthers, C. P., & Young, D. A. (2007).

Implementing and sustaining service-learning at the institutional level. Journal of

Experiential Education, 29(3), 344-365.

You, Z., & Rud, A. G. (2010). A Model of Dewey's Moral Imagination for Service Learning:

Theoretical Explorations and Implications for Practice in Higher Education. Education

and Culture, 26(2), 36-51.

Documents

Capstone Thesis