Case Study 2: 5 Service Learning Programs

Trebby Ellington
Loyola University Chicago

The analysis and reflection in this case study is based upon five service learning
programs across five different higher education institutions. The service learning programs are
the following: the International Service Learning Program at Boston University
(http://www.bu.edu/sargent/admissions/undergraduate/distinctive-academicopportunities/international-service-learning-program/), the Caramanico school in Cambodia at
Villanova University
(http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/engineering/service/learning/cambodia.html), allocating
real dollar grants to local non-profits that address social and economic challenges at Northeastern
University (http://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/experiential-learning-2/service-learning), variety
of disciplines and service activities at Cornell University
(http://courses.cornell.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=12&poid=3492), and the Joint
Educational Project at the University of Southern California Dornsife
(https://dornsife.usc.edu/all-about-jep/). Connections and disconnections are discussed among
the programs across the themes of what the levels of reflection, integration and service were,
who the beneficiaries were, and what the focuses were. It is important to note that not every
possible connection or disconnection is discussed, but what I found to be the most important.
First, the number one similarity across all five service learning programs was that they
were all highly integrated. Experiential learning theory suggested a whole integrative outlook on
learning that combines experience, observation, cognition and performance (Kolb, 1984). Each
program exuded the latter by leveraging classroom knowledge to address local or global needs
by active engagement in service projects. For example, the service learning program at Cornell
University, which was housed under The Cornell Public Service Center (PSC), offered service
learning within various disciplines that allowed students to link theory to practice through

organized public service activities in partnership with local communities where students gained
hands on experience not only with their problem solving skills, but also with further developing
their critical thinking skills. As a result of this, students cultivated an even deeper understanding
of their discipline all while attaining a heightened sense of civic responsibility. The key to
learning is based on the shared interaction of the practice of the accommodation of course
concepts to experiences in the real world as well as the practice of assimilation of real world
experiences into existing course concepts (Kolb, 1984). This integrative idea of applying course
content to the service projects and bringing back the experiences from the service projects to the
classroom produces holistic learning and brings me to my next point, level of reflection.
Next, the second most similar aspect to all the service learning projects, with the
exception of Boston University, was that of what seems to be a high level of reflection
incorporated into the programs. One of the principles of suggested practice for service learning
teaching was to offer comprehensive tactics to produce community learning and understand
course learning objectives which should integrate learning interventions that stimulate critical
reflection, examination and application of experiences from service projects (Howard, 1993). For
example, the Joint Educational Project at the University of Southern California Dornsife, which
was housed in the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, required a high level of reflection as
part of their program. Here, students were observed, were required to submit weekly reflection
papers, and were evaluated at the end of the semester based on final papers or in-class oral
reports. It was pointed out that students were required to reflect at two different levels:
personally and intellectually. This was done by weekly journals or reflective questions that
paralleled the content on the course syllabi. This showed a high level of reflection because it
allowed students to reflect on the service experiences on one hand and then allowed them to

connect those reflections to course content on the other hand. Students were able to develop into
knowledgeable community members and problem solvers by way of providing service to the
community and then reflecting on what the meaning of that service was (Cress, 2005).
Then, the level of service was analyzed where all of the service learning programs, with
the exceptions of Northeastern University and Cornell University, demonstrated a high level. As
Cress (2005) stated:
As citizens, it is our obligation to contribute to the improvement of our nation. Moreover,
many would argue that as citizens of the wealthiest nation in the world, it is our
responsibility to be good global citizens. (p.10)
For example, the Caramanico school project in Cambodia of Villanova University, which was
housed in the College of Engineering, demonstrated a high level of service and good global
citizenship. Students focused on the design and implementation of a model school for
demonstrating best practices in education and sustainability in Cambodia. While there, they were
immersed in a difficult culture, identified the areas needs, and worked with the community to
determine how they could make a difference. Even following the experience, a group of students
returned back to the school to check on the finalization of the school and see how things were
operating. This showed the students investment and their efforts at being good global citizens as
well as ensuring that the students had direct contact with those they were serving (Brownell &
Swaner, 2010). Though the frequency at which students met for each of the service learning
projects varied, the Caramanico school project students met for at least two hours every evening
for two weeks consecutively.
Following, the beneficiaries of each service learning project were analyzed. With this
idea of reciprocal learning, service learning only transpires when both the service providers and

service recipients benefit from the service activities (Furco, 1996). All of the service learning
programs seemed to illustrate the providers and recipients were both beneficiaries of the service
projects with the exception of the projects at Northeastern University, which were housed in the
College of Social Sciences and Humanities. For example, Northeastern University provided
projects such as allocating real dollar grants to local non-profits that addressed social and
economic challenges and building a website to document humanitarian projects in postearthquake Haiti. To a certain extent, I believe the providers benefitted somewhat from the
experiences; however, I believe the recipients benefitted more than the providers because there
lacked a high level of interpersonal contact, and in a good practice service learning project, there
should be equal benefit. I believe the providers were not gaining as much from the projects
because they were simply providing a service; they were not actually immersed in the
community or into different cultures and they were not working directly with those who were the
direct recipients of the service being provided. This does not align with the literature where the
intention should be to equally benefit the provider and recipient of the service (Furco, 1996).
Also, I do not see how this lack of interaction could be beneficial to the providers quality of
personal or intellectual reflection from the course and projects.
Finally, as much as it is important to equally benefit the provider and recipient of the
service, it is also important to ensure an equal focus on both the service being provided and the
learning that is to occur (Furco, 1996). All of the service learning programs seemed to have an
equal focus on service and learning with the exceptions of Northeastern University and Cornell
University. For example, the International Service Learning Program at Boston University,
which was housed in the College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College,
demonstrated an equal focus on both service and learning. With this project, students took a trip

to Thailand to apply their classroom knowledge to assist healthcare providers and community
health workers with delivering basic healthcare needs to an underserved community. Clearly, one
can see the focus on service here. Also, students were able to promote health education,
empower communities, and become educated, compassionate global citizens which allowed
them to return home with a deeper understanding of the worlds cultures and health challenges.
One can also clearly see the focus of the program to be learning for the student as well.
Though the examples provided above illustrated multiple ways in which the service
learning programs support the literature, it is important to reiterate that a combination of high
levels of integration, reflection and service, an equal distribution of benefit of services to both
the recipients and providers, and an equal focus on service and learning allows for a
comprehensive experience and mutually beneficial goals between universities and their
communities (Howard, 1994). However, there were also some areas of disconnect that I
struggled with during my analysis of the five service learning programs. I found a disconnect
between some of the principles of good practice for service learning pedagogy or a lack of
presence of some. First, one of the principles suggested to establish criteria for service
placements and with that, associate the required period of service with its role in the students
comprehension of both the academic and civic learning objectives (Howard, 1994). I find this to
be a necessary suggestion, but also problematic in the sense of how can one truly assess if a
project required enough service hours to make the experience significant (Brownell & Swaner,
2010)? For example, Boston Universitys program was over the course of two weeks while the
University of Southern California Dornslifes program was two hours per week over the course
of an eight-week period. How can we determine if the former was just as significant as the latter?
I believe there should be some criterion for the number of hours across all programs to provide

some consistency because it also seemed to play a part in how I ranked whether or not a program
had a high or low level of service.
Additionally, another idea that challenged me during my analysis of the programs was the
suggestion to focus on quality service and to ensure that students have direct contact with their
clients (Brownell & Swaner, 2010). I struggled with this because though I agree that this is a
critical component to the service itself as well as to the reflection of the experience, how can we,
again, decide that one programs quality is not good enough just because it lacks some
interaction with the direct recipients? For example, the Northeastern University grant allocating
service did not allow for students to have ample interaction with the recipients; however, those
funds were important to the community in addressing social and economic challenges so how
can we compare the quality of this type of service to others? I believe there should also be some
further development of this suggestion and a more specific criterion for this as well to provide
some consistency and to address some of this ambiguity. Lastly, I also struggled with the
ambiguity of analyzing the beneficiaries and focus of each program. Literature illustrated there
should be an equal focus on service and learning as well as an equal benefit of the service for the
providers and the recipients (Furco, 1996). However, some of the programs seemed to
demonstrate equal intentions with their focus and beneficiaries, but to what extent and how
equal? For example, Boston University seemed to address the equality of both, but the recipients
seemed to benefit from the service slightly more than the providers and the focus seemed to be a
little bit more on the service than the learning. Similar to the previous two gaps, I believe there
should be a more consistent and specific criterion for these as well. Should it be more of the idea
of equity then versus equality?

In summary, I believe the inconsistencies in the definition of service learning, good

practice principles, and criteria of requirements poses a challenge to curriculum development in
the sense of whether or not we are able to adequately assess the impact, progress of, or lack of
progress within these programs. I also find it interesting that only two of the five service
programs analyzed were considered good service learning programs because they had high levels
of reflection, integration and service, an equal benefit of their services for both the recipients and
the providers, and an equal focus on service and learning. These two programs were found at
Villanova University and the University of Southern California Dornsife. Maybe if some of the
ambiguities discussed above were addressed and developed more fully then those programs who
were not considered good service learning programs based on these major themes could improve
upon their programs.

References
Boston University: http://www.bu.edu/sargent/admissions/undergraduate/distinctive-academicopportunities/international-service-learning-program/
Brownell, J.E. & Swaner, L.E. (2010). Five high-impact practices: Research on learning
outcomes, completion and quality. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Cornell University: http://courses.cornell.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=12&poid=3492
Cress, Christine M. (2005). What is service learning? In C. Cress, P. Collier & V. Reitenauer
(Ed.), Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning across the
disciplines. (pp. 7-15). Richmond VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Furco, Andrew. Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education.
Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National
Service, 1996. 2-6.
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: OSCL Press.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Northeastern University: http://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/experiential-learning-2/servicelearning
University of Southern California Dornsife: https://dornsife.usc.edu/all-about-jep/
Villanova University:
http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/engineering/service/learning/cambodia.html)