Running head: CURRICULUM

Curriculum: Case Study Three

Jonathan Merrill
Loyola University Chicago

CURRICULUM

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and reflect upon five service-learning programs at
different institutions of higher education. In doing so, themes and trends found in program
structure will be articulated and connections to relevant literature will be made. In general, there
were no institutional criteria used in selecting programs from different institutions. However,
priority was given to programs that clearly articulated their mission statement and values. The
following section will both describe the five chosen programs as well as evaluate them using
Howard's (1993) Principles of Good Practice for Service-Learning Pedagogy and other academic
literature.
Program Description and Evaluation
The first service-learning program researched was the University of Michigan's Ginsberg
Center for Community Service and Learning. The overarching mission at the Ginsberg Center is
to " engage students, faculty, and community members in learning together through

CURRICULUM

community service and civic participation in a diverse democratic society" (Our Mission, 2015).
As indicated by the name, service-learning is only one of the many opportunities that is offered
by this center. Specifically, this center focuses on assisting faculty in incorporating servicelearning into their academic curricula or campus programs. This is accomplished through
connecting faculty with community organizations for potential partnerships; facilitating
workshops with students on how best to enter and exit communities; conducting peer facilitation
trainings for student leaders; syllabus design; and providing opportunities guest lectures on social
justice and social identities that may impact how students interact with specific communities
(Our Mission, 2015). Howards (1993) principle of intentionality in service-placements and
preparation of students is demonstrated by this office. According to Howard, "faculty who are
deliberate about establishing criteria for selecting community service placements will find that
students are able to extract more relevant learning from their respective service experiences (p.
2). Although the specific criteria used to select sites is not specified, there is a clear conversation
that is facilitated by the center to appropriately match faculty with potential sites - suggesting the
use of some type of criteria. Additionally, the center offers opportunities for students to become
more prepared for their service-learning through workshops and facilitation trainings. Through
these trainings, students become prepared to learn from their communities and make meaning of
their experiences.
The University of Marylands Office of Leadership and Community Service-Learning
(LCSL) was the second program researched. The overarching mission of this office is simply to
"promote positive social change through transformative learning and community engagement"
(Mission and Vision, 2015). Similarly to the Ginsberg Center, this office organizes their efforts
into service, leadership, and academic opportunities. Service-learning is housed primarily in the

CURRICULUM

academic opportunities offered. Unlike the Ginsberg Center, which seemed to take a very active
role in working with staff to create impactful service-learning experiences, LCSL takes a more
distant approach when working with faculty. The LCSLs handbook for service-learning borrows
from Howard's (1993) principle of good practice in order to guide faculty in designing quality
service-learning courses (Mission and Vision, 2015). Specifically, LCSL focuses on the
principles of setting clear learning objectives; academic credit focused on learning instead of
service; non-compromised academic rigor; and preparation for uncertainty and variation in
student learning outcomes (Howard, 1993). For each of these principles, the website offers an
existing course as an example. In addition to this online element, the program offers an
opportunity to partner with a select few faculty members to train them in creating effective
service-learning components in their courses.
The LCSL also creates co-curricular service-learning opportunities for students in the
form of Alternative Breaks. Unlike academic service-learning experiences, these alternative
breaks are not tied closely to academic courses. Ideally, through reflection, education, and
service, Alternative Breaks develops mutually beneficial community partnerships, critical
thinking and leadership skills to create a social just world (Mission and Vision, 2015). The
reciprocal nature that is stated in this mission is key; it resonates with literature that states that
mutual partnership is a foundational principle of service-learning experiences (Furco, 1996;
Jacoby, 1996).
The third service-learning program examined was the Pennsylvania State Universitys
Center for Service Learning and Community-Based Research. As the name entails, this office
focuses primarily on service-learning and community-based research. Borrowing from external

CURRICULUM

resources, the center defines service-learning as teaching and learning strategies that
integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning
experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities (About the Center, 2015).
Although they articulate the key components of service-learning - including an emphasis on
reflection and engaging people for the common good - it is unclear how these components are
actually incorporated in their service-learning opportunities. This is reinforced by the purpose
statement of the center: "to provide opportunities for students to develop research skills, to
apply what they learn in the class to real-world problems, and to effectively communicate their
finding" (About the Center, 2015). This statement correlates more closely with Furco's (1996)
definition of field education where the focus is on enhancing students' understanding of a
field of study, while also providing substantial emphasis on the service being provided (p. 5).
While an impactful experience in its own right, it fails to create a reciprocal relationship between
both stakeholders. Similarly to the previous two institutions, one of the main functions of this
office is assisting faculty in developing service-learning components within their courses.
However, in contrast to what has been previously seen, this center tries to match interested
faculty with community organizations' needs (About the Center, 2015). This suggests that there
is low amount of communication between faculty and the community about their needs - a
disconnect that could potentially impact how much students are learning within the experience.
The fourth program examined was Indiana Universitys Center for Innovative Teaching
and Learning (CITL). The mission of this center is to "promote service-learning as an integral
and enriching aspect of a student's education and to foster university engagement with the larger
community that furthers the academic and public purposes of the university" (Center for
Innovative Teaching, 2015). Overall, this program is structured very similarly to those

CURRICULUM

previously examined. The office, in addition to service learning, offers support for a wide range
of areas in teaching and learning. The service-learning program specifically works with
academic partners to create more engaging classes for students. This is in comparison to other
programs that provided co-curricular opportunities for service learning in addition to academic
courses. In contrast to the previous three institutions, the focus of this center does not seem to be
on the faculty. Although there are resources provided for faculty to create service-learning
opportunities in their curriculum, the focus of this center seems to be increasing student's
participation in service-learning experiences. As such, the website for CITL provides more
information regarding different service-learning courses that are offered. Overall, due to the lack
of description about what goes into creating a service-learning experience, it was difficult to
identify how this program correlated with the principles that Howard (1993) emphasized.
The final program examined was The George Washington University's Center for Civic
Engagement and Public Service. Academic service-learning is one of four services that this
center offers. A consistent trend throughout all programs examined thus far, this center also
provides services to support student leaders and faculty who are in the process of planning
service-learning experiences. This center established seven criteria for academic servicelearning courses:
"This is a credit-bearing undergraduate, graduate, or professional studies course, the
service addresses a community need through direct or indirect service or communitybased research; the service follows processes that are mutually agreed upon by partner
agencies and the instructor and/or students; there are planned benefits for the community
and students; this course integrates service and academic course content that enhance and

CURRICULUM

inform each other; the course actively guides and supports students in critical reflection
through assignments and in-class activities that integrate student service and course
content; and finally, student course assessment and credit are based upon evidence of
students learning, including critical reflection." (About our Center, 2015)
In comparison to previous programs, this one excels in articulating their expectations of these
service-learning courses while simultaneously incorporating several of Howard's (1993)
principles. Based on these criteria, it is clear that there is an emphasis on Howards principles of
academic credit for learning, providing educationally-sound learning strategies in the experience,
and student preparation for the experience. Furthermore, this is the first program that
incorporated critical reflection - or clearly articulated it - into their service-learning experience.
Critical reflection contributes to continuous personal growth, improvement in the quality of the
service, and continuous academic learning. Overall, this program has put effort into emphasizing
both learning and service components of service-learning experiences.
Synthesis
In reflection, I found that the most difficult part of looking across these different
programs was determining the extent to which they qualified as service-learning. As articulated
by Furco (1996), the service-learning paradigm is a spectrum and courses fall in different
categories depending on their primary focus. Experiences that focused primarily on the service
were labeled volunteerism. On the opposite end of the spectrum, learning focused experiences
were categorized as internships. As these two foci reached equity, the spectrum also included
community service and field education. Finally, service-learning was when both the service and
learning components were equally integrated.

CURRICULUM

However, especially with the information that was provided or lack thereof, it was
difficult to classify some of the experiences that programs provided as service-learning. For
example, the Ginsberg Center put effort into intentionally working to connect faculty with
partnerships where both communities would benefit. This reciprocal nature, as previously
mentioned, is one of the foundational principles described by Jacoby (1996). However, Jacoby
also described the importance that reflection has on the learning process. The emphasis on
reflection was not articulated by the Ginsberg Center. Assuming that there is a lack of reflection
occurring - can these experiences really be called service-learning? Furthermore, I struggled
with finding programs that fulfilled all of the principles that Howard (1993) elaborated. For
example, the LCSL specifically focused on implementing and articulating four of Howard's
principles when advising faculty in creating their service-learning experiences. Although I
recognize that these principles are not criteria for being considered a service-learning experience,
the principles that were not emphasized carry equal weight and failing to incorporate them
lessens the overall student experience and learning.
Due to these issues, I struggled to qualify each of the experiences that were articulated by
these programs as service-learning. The experiences being described by specific programs
offered aligned more with community service or field education. In reviewing George
Washington University's Center for Civic Engagement and Public service, I think that they did an
excellent job of incorporating multiple principles of good practice for service-learning pedagogy,
including both reflection and reciprocity, and balancing the learning and service pieces. I think it
is important to develop specific criteria for distinguishing between the five activities that Jacoby
(1996) mentioned. In his article he begins to break down the difference between community
service, field education, and service-learning, but based off this assignment I feel like the line

CURRICULUM

between these three can sometimes be blurred. The danger in this is that staff and faculty are
providing these high-impact 'service-learning' experiences which is really just glorified
community service. This also raises questions on how do we evaluate these experiences when
they are labeled as service-learning, but are actually more aligned with community service or
field education.

References
About The Center. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from
http://www.bk.psu.edu/Academics/33423.htm
About Our Center. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://serve.gwu.edu/about-ourcenter
Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from
http://citl.indiana.edu/programs/serviceLearning/
Furco, Andrew. "Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education." Expanding
Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National Service,
1996. 2-6.

CURRICULUM
10
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.
Jacoby, B. & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and Practices.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mission and Vision. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from
http://thestamp.umd.edu/leadership_community_servicelearning/about_lcsl/mission_and_vision
Our Mission & Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from
http://ginsberg.umich.edu/about/mission