Case Study #2: Service-Learning Programs in Higher Education

Ariel Ropp

Loyola University Chicago

 Case Study #2: Service-Learning Programs in Higher Education

For my second case study, I chose to research service-learning programs at colleges and

universities that represent different geographic regions, enrollment sizes, and institutional types:

DePaul University, Tulane University, University of Minnesota, Stanford University, and

University of Massachusetts Amherst. The following case study will summarize these five

service-learning programs, identify trends and variations, and integrate key concepts from Cress

(2005), Kolb (1984), Howard (1993), and Furco (1996).

Descriptive Analysis

The first service-learning program I chose to analyze is DePaul Universitys Steans

Center for Community-Based Service Learning and Community Service Studies. The Steans

Center defines academic service-learning as a pedagogy that fully integrates course content (i.e.,

theories, methods, assignments) with a community service experience driven by community

needs. This integration differentiates academic service-learning from mere volunteerism or

community service (Furco, 1996). According to the Steans website, academic service-learning

can take many forms at DePaul: direct service (directly supporting an organizations existing

work), project-based service (producing a tangible product for a community organization),

community-based research (contributing to a research effort headed by a community partner),

advocacy (supporting ongoing campaigns to address critical issues), and solidarity (studying or

working alongside marginalized populations, such as the Inside-Out Prison Exchange program).

Service opportunities include the McCormick Internship, in which students collaborate on a

project with a community organization; the Public School Internship, in which students tutor and

mentor at public schools; and Jumpstart, in which DePaul students deliver an early education

program for preschool children from low-income families. All undergraduates have the option to
take a service-learning course to fulfill their Experiential Learning core requirement, and

students especially interested in service may declare a Community Service Studies minor, which

combines service-learning courses from a variety of academic disciplines. With regard to

faculty, the Center provides resources for faculty members who want to include service-learning

pedagogy in their courses. Professors are asked to integrate reflection activities throughout the

term, lead discussions on systemic issues relevant to service locations, and assign readings that

complement the service experience. This approach exemplifies the Cress reading (2005), which

explains that effective service-learning courses use academic course content to explore the

underlying social, political, and economic issues affecting students service sites.

For my second analysis, I examined Tulane Universitys Center for Public Service. This

center administers the Public Service requirement of the universitys core curriculum. All Tulane

undergraduates are required to take one service-learning course at the 100 300 level and one of

the following approved programs at the 300 level or above: a service-learning course, academic

service-learning internship, faculty-sponsored public service research project, public service

honors thesis project, public service-based study abroad program, or capstone experience with a

public service component. Tulanes service-learning courses require 20-40 hours of service and

are designed to help students apply academic knowledge and critical thinking skills to meet

genuine community needs. Critical reflection is structured throughout each service-learning

course in order to create connections between the service experience, course objectives, and

student learning outcomes. Faculty are encouraged to follow Howards (1993) principles for

good practice of service-learning pedagogy, including selecting meaningful service placements

and involving service providers in the planning and evaluation of service activities. Students

who are interested in exploring community service at a deeper level can apply for the public
service fellows program or work as service-learning assistants, who act as peer mentors for

service-learning courses.

Next, I researched the University of Minnesotas Center for Community-Engaged

Learning. This center defines service-learning as a teaching method that incorporates

community involvement into coursework, with the goal of enhancing students' understanding of

course material, building their sense of civic responsibility, and addressing community-identified

needs. According to the UMN website, a community service placement serves as a lived text

for service-learning students, much like a textbook would in a traditional course. To support

service-learning, the Center helps faculty add service-learning elements to their syllabi and

identify community organizations that match course objectives. Service-learning courses at

UMN must include reflection activities for students to connect their service experience with their

classroom learning. Faculty members are encouraged to incorporate the What? So What? Now

What? model, which asks students to explain the facts and events of their experience, analyze

the meaning of experience, consider its impact on themselves and the community, and apply their

learning in future situations. What? So What? Now What? essentially condenses the four

elements of Kolbs (1984) theory of experiential learning: concrete experience, reflective

observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Together, these four

components create an ongoing learning cycle.

For my fourth analysis, I looked at Stanford Universitys Haas Center for Public Service.

Stanford students are encouraged (but not required) to take a Cardinal Course, which applies

classroom knowledge to address real-world societal problems. All Cardinal Courses integrate

course or research objectives with community engagement, which may take the form of activism,

community engaged learning and research, direct service, public policy, philanthropy, or social
entrepreneurship. Some courses initiate direct service to local nonprofits and public offices,

while others give students already involved in service the chance to add a curricular component

to their experience. All Cardinal Courses follow seven principles of ethical and effective service:

reciprocity and learning through partnership; clear expectations and commitment; preparation;

respect for diversity; safety and well-being; reflection and evaluation; and humility. Many of

these principles relate to Cress (2005) description of service-learning, highlighting the

importance of reflection, empathy, and reciprocity. Students are also encouraged to sign up for

Cardinal Quarter, a full-time, quarter-long service experience designed to integrate academic

learning with community engagement. This experience can take the form of an internship or

fellowship and includes preparatory programs, faculty advising, and reflection activities during

and after the service experience.

For my final analysis, I reviewed the Civic Engagement and Service-Learning (CESL)

Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. According to the CESL website, courses

designated as civic engagement engage students in some degree of public service, while

service-learning courses intentionally integrate significant community engagement either

direct service or project-based service into course learning goals. Service-learning courses

stress the importance of structured reflection, preparation, assessment of learning outcomes, and

reciprocal benefits for both students and the community. Learning outcomes focus on three

domains: academic learning (applying academic theories and concepts), personal learning

(developing awareness of personal strengths, weaknesses, and core values), and civic learning

(understanding the perspectives of community members, collaborating toward shared goals, and

increasing ones sense of civic duty). Each of these learning outcomes reflects the multiple

benefits of service-learning identified by Cress (2005). In addition, the CESL website includes
guidelines for thoughtful service as well as resources to help students understand how privilege,

oppression, and social identity intersect with service-learning. Students who are especially

interested in service can apply for the Citizen Scholars Program, a 4-course service-learning and

leadership program; IMPACT!, a service-learning residential academic program for freshmen; or

CivX, a self-designed major that combines courses from an academic discipline and five civic

engagement content areas.

Comparative Analysis

As I examined these five service-learning programs, I saw several trends emerge. Nearly

all of the programs in my analysis articulate the importance of reciprocity and partnership in the

development and implementation of their service-learning courses. In line with Furcos (1996)

description of service-learning, these programs are designed to equally benefit the student learner

and the service site. Furthermore, the programs in my case study generally seem to balance

learning goals and service outcomes (Furco, 1996). Students bring knowledge and skills to their

service agencies while simultaneously learning from the knowledge and expertise of the

community partners (Cress, 2005). Across the board, the programs in my case study allow

community partners to identify their own needs and goals. DePauls program, in particular,

emphasizes the necessity of recognizing community partners existing knowledge and assets.

Overall, I was pleased to see that none of these programs use language like charity, and several

of them explicitly distinguish service-learning from volunteerism and community service.

Another element that is necessary for a strong service-learning experience is reflection.

All of the programs in my case study explain the importance of weaving reflection activities

throughout the service-learning course as a way for students to make meaning of their

experience. Several of these programs offer online documents with strategies for faculty to
incorporate reflection into their courses. For example, both Tulane and UMN share resources

that explain the stages of reflection, provide sample reflection questions, and offer ideas for

structured reflection activities, such as journals, discussions, case studies, letters-to-the-editor,

and multimedia presentations. All of these activities are designed to help students process what

they are seeing and doing and connect it to academic content to gain deeper insights. The

strategies recommended by these programs reflect Kolbs (1984) theory that learning is a process

that happens through the interaction of action and reflection.

Although all five programs describe the importance of reflection, I am surprised that few

of them go into detail about the actual classroom experience of a service-learning course. Some

programs, like Stanford, offer very little insight regarding the classroom activities their service-

learning students should expect. Others, like the University of Minnesota, provide resources for

professors to design engaging classroom activities, though it is unclear how much the program

requires faculty to adhere to best practices. Generally speaking, there is a lack of emphasis on

academic rigor and active learning activities, both of which are strongly recommended by

Howard (1993). Cress (2005) similarly highlights the role of students as active co-creators of

knowledge in service-learning courses. Unfortunately, most of case study programs do not call

attention to active learning or co-construction of knowledge.

The last two themes that I explored across these service-learning programs are access and

quality control: Who gets to participate in these rich learning experiences? How do we know

that these programs are doing what they purport to do? At some institutions, service-learning is a

graduation requirement (Tulane) or one of several possible experiential options in the core

curriculum (DePaul), whereas other institutions appear to offer service-learning on a purely

optional basis (Stanford, UMass, and UMN). Programs with stricter service-learning academic
requirements appear to have more consistency across courses as well as more frequent

evaluations of service-learning coursework to ensure student learning and maximum

community impact (DePaul). The other program websites do not offer much information about

service-learning course evaluation and renewal, so it is difficult to know how well they hold their

faculty accountable for enacting meaningful service-learning pedagogy in their classes.

Conclusion

The five service-learning programs in my case study generally do a good job of

incorporating key principles of service-learning pedagogy identified by Cress (2005), Kolb

(1984), Howard (1993), and Furco (1996). All of these programs emphasize reciprocity,

partnership, and the importance of pairing action and reflection. To varying degrees, they all

offer helpful resources on their websites for faculty to utilize in the development of service-

learning courses, though we cannot be sure how well these faculty members are implementing

service-learning pedagogy in practice. Areas for improvement include training faculty to utilize

active learning activities in the classroom, establishing clearer criteria for service placements,

and regularly evaluating service-learning courses to ensure maximum learning.

 References

Cress, C. M. (2005). What is service-learning? In C. M. Cress, P. J. Collier, & V. L. Reitenauer

(Eds.), Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning across the

disciplines. (pp. 7-15). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: a balanced approach to experiential education In Taylor, B.

and Corporation for National Service (Eds.), Expanding Boundaries: Serving and

Learning (pp. 2-6). Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service.

Howard, J. (1993). Community service learning in the curriculum. In J. Howard (Ed.), Praxis I:

A faculty casebook on community service learning. (pp. 3-12). Ann Arbor: OCSL Press.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

DePaul University: http://steans.depaul.edu/

Stanford University: https://haas.stanford.edu/

Tulane University: http://www2.tulane.edu/cps/students/servicelearning.cfm

University of Massachusetts Amherst: https://cesl.umass.edu/

University of Minnesota: http://www.servicelearning.umn.edu/